We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We may remove this dual-licensing clause later, depending on what the community decides with regard to licensing of existing and new wikis based on the options that the FDL 1.3 will provide. This dual-licensing of new wikis is purely intended to make sure that we have the _option_ to transition these wikis to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or later) if we choose to.
Hoi, Thank you. Sad to hear that the hoped for progress did not materialise...
Would you be so kind to make sure that the projects that have been waiting for such an excessively long time are now created ? This is a good moment to reassess the projects that are ready / almost ready again. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We may remove this dual-licensing clause later, depending on what the community decides with regard to licensing of existing and new wikis based on the options that the FDL 1.3 will provide. This dual-licensing of new wikis is purely intended to make sure that we have the _option_ to transition these wikis to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or later) if we choose to.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Any chance you can provide some updated insight on when 1.3 might appear?
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We may remove this dual-licensing clause later, depending on what the community decides with regard to licensing of existing and new wikis based on the options that the FDL 1.3 will provide. This dual-licensing of new wikis is purely intended to make sure that we have the _option_ to transition these wikis to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or later) if we choose to.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/30 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
Any chance you can provide some updated insight on when 1.3 might appear?
I'm afraid not - it seems to be in the "it'll be done when it's done" stage
Like Arcosanti? Sorry, but that is unacceptable as a phase for something people are waiting for. If the FSF expects to continue to be taken seriously by the wider community, they need to have the ability to set deadlines for themselves and more importantly to meet them.
Mark
2008/4/30 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/4/30 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
Any chance you can provide some updated insight on when 1.3 might appear?
I'm afraid not - it seems to be in the "it'll be done when it's done" stage
Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller ha scritto:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
Won't this prevent writing articles translated from GFDL-only wikis? If A licenses a text under GFDL, you cannot license a derivative under cc-by-sa. And if we can transition the "old" GFDL-only wikis, why can't we transition the new ones if we start them GFDL-only?
Cruccone
2008/4/30, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller ha scritto:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
Won't this prevent writing articles translated from GFDL-only wikis? If A licenses a text under GFDL, you cannot license a derivative under cc-by-sa. And if we can transition the "old" GFDL-only wikis, why can't we transition the new ones if we start them GFDL-only?
Cruccone
Same thought occurred to me. NL Wikibooks is also dual licensed, and it is with that respect a small pain in the ass. I think that especially for new wiki's with brand new users this is not very practical, as they have already trouble enough to understand what a free license is at all... (and now they'll be told that they can't even translate articles from other Wikipediae, but they can translate from french to english? :S)
I think it would be good if this would be reconsidered if this argument did not come up yet.
BR, Lodewijk
2008/4/30 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
Same thought occurred to me. NL Wikibooks is also dual licensed, and it is with that respect a small pain in the ass.
Under the construction of the FDL 1.3 we've seen, it might be feasible to have a clause which amounts to "I also agree to licensing my edits under CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the event that this wiki will be migrated to CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the future". Mike, jump in if you disagree, but that kind of agreement would seem sufficient to me to ensure that content can be safely migrated in the future.
The only point here is to not block a clean future migration of new wikis.
I think it's important, at least at this phase, to expressly communicate to everyone that CC-BY-SA 3.0 includes "later versions of this license" clause. I just want to foreclose the possibility that someone will come along later and say "I agreed to 3.0, but I don't like 3.1."
--Mike
Under the construction of the FDL 1.3 we've seen, it might be feasible to have a clause which amounts to "I also agree to licensing my edits under CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the event that this wiki will be migrated to CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the future". Mike, jump in if you disagree, but that kind of agreement would seem sufficient to me to ensure that content can be safely migrated in the future.
The only point here is to not block a clean future migration of new wikis.
--
Of course IANAL and all, but it sounds to me like you want to license changes (translations) and not versions. That sounds quite complicated to me. To get things clear, please let's take an example.
Say I am a 64 year old woman from the Qurinyi tribe in middle Africa (dont look it up, it does not exist). And I just want to start the Qurinyi Wikipedia with my recent skills to type together with my friends on the new computers we just got. I speak well French, so a logical start would be to start translating major articles at least partially from French.
Would it be OK to do that in the new situation? Strictly speaking, there is still (GFDL) copyright of the original French authors on the text, but on the original there is no CC-BY-SA license. Am I or am I not allowed to add a CC-BY-SA here? And if I would only say that my part was cc-by-sa, how can I identify what is mine then?
Thanks for clarifying. If it is all ok, sure, no problem for me. I just would like things not get extra complicated for people in these new wiki's :)
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/4/30 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
Would it be OK to do that in the new situation? Strictly speaking, there is still (GFDL) copyright of the original French authors on the text, but on the original there is no CC-BY-SA license. Am I or am I not allowed to add a CC-BY-SA here? And if I would only say that my part was cc-by-sa, how can I identify what is mine then?
Thanks for clarifying. If it is all ok, sure, no problem for me. I just would like things not get extra complicated for people in these new wiki's :)
Yes, that would work under the new clause, provided that all the original translated content is migrated at the same time. This is the only scenario we're really exploring, anyway: Either we'll switch the Wikimedia projects to CC-BY-SA at some point, or we won't.
I've drafted up this clause at the following URL: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis
To keep things simple, I suggest that we use this version for all new wikis.
Will this apply to images as well?
- White Cat
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/4/30 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
Same thought occurred to me. NL Wikibooks is also dual licensed, and it is with that respect a small pain in the ass.
Under the construction of the FDL 1.3 we've seen, it might be feasible to have a clause which amounts to "I also agree to licensing my edits under CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the event that this wiki will be migrated to CC-BY-SA 3.0 in the future". Mike, jump in if you disagree, but that kind of agreement would seem sufficient to me to ensure that content can be safely migrated in the future.
The only point here is to not block a clean future migration of new wikis.
Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
I'm not sure this is possible. All approved wikis already have an extensive body of articles in the Incubator licensed under the GFDL. I think these articles cannot be relicensed under a dual-license until we transition to GFDL 1.3.
If this is correct, we can only dual-license new wikis if we purge all their GFDL-only work for the last several months, or wait until GFDL 1.3 is released.
2008/4/30 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
I'm not sure this is possible. All approved wikis already have an extensive body of articles in the Incubator licensed under the GFDL.
Yes, this is understood. Under the clause I proposed in response to effe, online at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis this will not be a problem. All the clause requires is that contributors commit to licensing their edits under CC-BY-SA in the event that the existing wiki content can be safely migrated, which in part depends on the FDL 1.3.
Hoi, It has been discussed already a long time that a new project is NOT a tabula rasa. Content is to be moved from the Incubator. The Incubator IS GFDL licensed. What I now understand is that the existing contributors are to re-license their content .... I think this is a sad moment because everything becomes even more muddled. What I hope for is that these projects are created preferably today. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/4/30 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
I'm not sure this is possible. All approved wikis already have an extensive body of articles in the Incubator licensed under the GFDL.
Yes, this is understood. Under the clause I proposed in response to effe, online at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis this will not be a problem. All the clause requires is that contributors commit to licensing their edits under CC-BY-SA in the event that the existing wiki content can be safely migrated, which in part depends on the FDL 1.3.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
All the clause requires is that contributors commit to licensing their edits under CC-BY-SA in the event that the existing wiki content can be safely migrated, which in part depends on the FDL 1.3.
This is difficult. For example, the Extremaduran Wikipedia test project has been edited by 34 users, some of which are inactive. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pathoschild/ls-testanalysis/?prefix=wp/ext
If we cannot contact any of these users (or they refuse to relicense), the only choice I see is between purging all subsequent versions of articles they edited, or waiting for FDL 1.3 with its migration clause. It's a choice between a messy time-intensive migration, or a probably lengthy wait.
If possible, it would be much better to leave the content under their current licensing. This would allow us to create the wikis immediately, and migrate them to a hypothetical dual-licensing on equal grounds with other wikis. Approved wikis today have more content than many of our existing domains.
2008/4/30 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
This is difficult. For example, the Extremaduran Wikipedia test project has been edited by 34 users, some of which are inactive. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pathoschild/ls-testanalysis/?prefix=wp/ext
This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
So, why does this African woman of 67 have t agree to this, and not all projects? Because essentially, there seems to me no big difference? Why can't we just say the same for enwiki then? There also all content is under FDL (like that new wiki with incubator content). Just on a somewhat larger scale?
Lodewijk
2008/5/1, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/4/30 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
This is difficult. For example, the Extremaduran Wikipedia test project has been edited by 34 users, some of which are inactive. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pathoschild/ls-testanalysis/?prefix=wp/ext
This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/30 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
So, why does this African woman of 67 have t agree to this, and not all projects?
That's because of the way the FDL 1.3 drafts we've seen address the migration question.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/4/30 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
So, why does this African woman of 67 have t agree to this, and not all projects?
That's because of the way the FDL 1.3 drafts we've seen address the migration question.
BTW, date of creation of the project is a well known migration clause, known from GFDL 2.0 drafts. I don't see a reason for mystification of that.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/4/30 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
This is difficult. For example, the Extremaduran Wikipedia test project has been edited by 34 users, some of which are inactive. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pathoschild/ls-testanalysis/?prefix=wp/ext
This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
Erik, I needed a lot of time to understand what are you saying. So, I'll try to explain it to others:
A clause for migration from GFDL 1.3 to CC-BY-SA 3.x/whatever will be applied only to wikis started before some date. This date is obviously before the present.
So, this applies to all existing projects, except to new ones; which includes Incubator, too.
Contributors should *state* that their work may be used under the terms under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or any later) *in the case* of switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.
This means that they are able to freely translate anything from any GFDL project, as well as the project will be licensed under GFDL until the migration.
I hope that I explained the main part of misunderstanding.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
So, this applies to all existing projects, except to new ones; which includes Incubator, too.
This applies to Incubator, too (I see that I was not so clear in wording).
Erik Moeller ha scritto:
This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere) and some content which is doubly licensed? Or that we just double license everything because shortly it will be legal to do so? And BTW, I thought contents were licensed in GFDL, not projects. If today I write something (releasing under GFDL 1.2 or later) on project A created last year or on project B created today, how is it possible that from project A you can do GFDL 1.2 -> GFDL 1.3 -> cc-by-sa-3.0 while on project B you can't, when you have released the same text under the same licence? Cruccone
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller ha scritto:
This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere) and some content which is doubly licensed? Or that we just double license everything because shortly it will be legal to do so? And BTW, I thought contents were licensed in GFDL, not projects. If today I write something (releasing under GFDL 1.2 or later) on project A created last year or on project B created today, how is it possible that from project A you can do GFDL 1.2 -> GFDL 1.3 -> cc-by-sa-3.0 while on project B you can't, when you have released the same text under the same licence? Cruccone
All wikis will be GFDL-only. Contributors of new wikis (including any of "older" Wikimedians) just need to agree that their work may be used under CC-BY-SA in the case of the license migration.
Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere) and some content which is doubly licensed?
As I understand it, yes. Which seems extremely confusing, and likely to cause more problems than it solves. The only explanation for this very strange decision that I can see if that the new license has an arbitrary date in it that pre-dates the actual publication of the license. If that's the case, then the correct action for the WMF is to point out to the people writing the license how stupid this is, rather than trying to cater to such a stupid clause.
2008/5/1, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere) and some content which is doubly licensed?
As I understand it, yes. Which seems extremely confusing, and likely to cause more problems than it solves. The only explanation for this very strange decision that I can see if that the new license has an arbitrary date in it that pre-dates the actual publication of the license. If that's the case, then the correct action for the WMF is to point out to the people writing the license how stupid this is, rather than trying to cater to such a stupid clause.
Maybe I am just shy and Dutch and all, but I would rather not insinuate to a lawyer that his proposal is stupid before I actually have the same background information, exact wordings and knowledge on the topic...
-- Lodewijk
One question: now Wikinews is under CC-BY 2.5 (not CC-BY-SA). How will its compatibility to the other project licensing? Currently incompatibility of GFDL and CC-BY is a sort of hazard according to some people.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We may remove this dual-licensing clause later, depending on what the community decides with regard to licensing of existing and new wikis based on the options that the FDL 1.3 will provide. This dual-licensing of new wikis is purely intended to make sure that we have the _option_ to transition these wikis to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or later) if we choose to.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Compatibility between CC-BY and GFDL is the same as compatibility between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA: you may use CC-BY material (let's say a Wikinews article) inside of GFDL or CC-BY-SA material (let's say a Wikipedia article), but you are not able to do the reverse action.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
One question: now Wikinews is under CC-BY 2.5 (not CC-BY-SA). How will its compatibility to the other project licensing? Currently incompatibility of GFDL and CC-BY is a sort of hazard according to some people.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We're still waiting for the FDL 1.3. Since there's been no resolution within the timeframe we hoped for, we're going to re-allow the creation of new Wikimedia wikis. To make sure that we can safely transition to CC-BY-SA, we're going to dual-license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We may remove this dual-licensing clause later, depending on what the community decides with regard to licensing of existing and new wikis based on the options that the FDL 1.3 will provide. This dual-licensing of new wikis is purely intended to make sure that we have the _option_ to transition these wikis to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or later) if we choose to.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org