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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

2008/4/30 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>: 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

2008/4/30 effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>om>: 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

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

Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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. -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

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(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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. -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

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 &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>:

2008/4/30 effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: That's because of the way the FDL 1.3 drafts we've seen address the migration question. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Erik Moeller ha scritto: 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 &lt;chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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 &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

2008/5/1, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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