[reposted with corrected subject header]
geni writes:
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
And if even a handful of oldtimes want their stuff removed? Have you any idea how much work that would involve? While we might have the man hours they could be better spent.
Naturally, I have an idea how much time it would involve. One may reasonably assume that oldtimers who want their stuff removed would help us comply in removing it. One may reasonably assume that the hours that they'd otherwise spend would not be spent on Wikipedia articles (since, according to your scenario, they would object to the new license that FSF approved and that WMF had implemented). It wouldn't be very Wikipedian of them to send me demand letters (through their lawyers) and have me do it. I've been working with volunteer contributors for a long time (17 years, actually), so I have an idea about how well asking for their help in meeting their own concerns would work. (It would work pretty well.)
But the fantasy here is in supposing that there's an option that *doesn't* require additional labor. If nothing changes, and if the current GFDL remains the paradigm, immense amounts of work in compliance with that license's more onerous terms will be required -- man hours that could be better spent.
That's why it's important to remain focused on the fact that it is possible to provide a copyleft scheme that is consistent with the values of GFDL but does not require application of a license designed for GPL-code-oriented software manuals to wiki content. The only question is, do we care enough about the projects' primary mission to ensure that the information in them becomes, and stays, maximally available to everyone in the world?
--Mike
There is either a legal need for WP to provide an opt-out if/when it relicense under a later (major revision) version of GFDL, or there isn't.
If there is, then we can stop talking about hypothetical, and talk about whether it'll be worth migrating at all, and if so how the opt out will work in practise.
If there isn't, then I would argue we don't provide an opt out under the very same reason we don't allow editors to retract their content submitted to WP now.
One can argue the extent of the efforts that would be required to rewrite articles to fulfil an opt out request, and it surely would depends on the number of such requests and whether the editor in concern would be willing to help. I would argue any reasonable estimates on the number of requests, and hence the number of articles affected would run into at least tens of thousands, probably more, as it would surely include all the number of editors we have had that tried to retract their submissions. Even if we are only talking about tenths of a percent of all articles on WP, we're still talking about a very disruptive number here.
Also, the idea that most if not all of those asking for the opt out will help in fulfilling those requests is, what's the phase, highly optimistic to say the least. Providing an opt out would be setting a very bad precedent to the future times when we have editors arguing for their contribution to be removed. The very simple argument that you let people removed their contribution in the past mean you should be allowing them to remove their contribution since then as well. This would imply disruption to potentially infinite number of articles for ever more.
KTC
On Nov 23, 2007 5:47 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
There is either a legal need for WP to provide an opt-out if/when it relicense under a later (major revision) version of GFDL, or there isn't.
Actually, the law is not always black and white like that.
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 18:13 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 5:47 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
There is either a legal need for WP to provide an opt-out if/when it relicense under a later (major revision) version of GFDL, or there isn't.
Actually, the law is not always black and white like that.
True. But in practise, the foundation will based on the advice given to it by its counsel, decide that there either is a need or isn't.
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
If there isn't, then I would argue we don't provide an opt out under the very same reason we don't allow editors to retract their content submitted to WP now.
Agree. What the community could decide is if they want to move from "GFDL 1.2 or later" to "GFDL 2.0 or later" or not. But even that would be problematic if some wikis moved while others not :-(
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org