I am making now one site (about pseudoscience) which I want to double-license, so materials may be used in the future at Wikipedia. As it is my site, I may make whichever, partial licensing, but I realized that there is one very stupid problem for which I think that answer exists, but I would like to hear your (and, especially, Mike's opinion):
I want to import some Wikipedia materials. Usually, it would be translations from the Wikipedia in English in Serbian. (For all other materials I am explicitly asking for double licensing [otherwise, I wouldn't import them], so this is not a problem.) But, if I import Wikipedia materials *now*, I may do it only by licensing it under GFDL. Again, this is not problem related to my site, because I may declare that such pages are GFDL-only. However, I want to allow that derivative works from such pages may be used on Wikipedia (in Serbian), again.
My common sense explanation would be that I may keep such pages temporary as GFDL-only and to allow GFDL/CC-BY-SA after Wikipedia switch to double licensing. But, I am not a lawyer and I am wondering is it possible to interpret the whole licensing process like that.
2008/11/16 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I am making now one site (about pseudoscience) which I want to double-license, so materials may be used in the future at Wikipedia. As it is my site, I may make whichever, partial licensing, but I realized that there is one very stupid problem for which I think that answer exists, but I would like to hear your (and, especially, Mike's opinion):
I want to import some Wikipedia materials. Usually, it would be translations from the Wikipedia in English in Serbian. (For all other materials I am explicitly asking for double licensing [otherwise, I wouldn't import them], so this is not a problem.) But, if I import Wikipedia materials *now*, I may do it only by licensing it under GFDL. Again, this is not problem related to my site, because I may declare that such pages are GFDL-only. However, I want to allow that derivative works from such pages may be used on Wikipedia (in Serbian), again.
My common sense explanation would be that I may keep such pages temporary as GFDL-only and to allow GFDL/CC-BY-SA after Wikipedia switch to double licensing. But, I am not a lawyer and I am wondering is it possible to interpret the whole licensing process like that.
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.)
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.)
Good point! Or if the page on en.wp is not drastically changed, I would be able to refer to the newer version of the article.
BTW, I am not the only person who is working on the site, but it is a very small group of people and editing is not open to the world.
BTW, I am not the only person who is working on the site, but it is a very small group of people and editing is not open to the world.
In that case, you can just get explicit permission from each of them to do whatever it is you need to do, so there shouldn't be a problem.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I am not the only person who is working on the site, but it is a very small group of people and editing is not open to the world.
In that case, you can just get explicit permission from each of them to do whatever it is you need to do, so there shouldn't be a problem.
I realized now what is the main problem. The issue wouldn't be newer or older version of the Wikipedia article because all older versions will be dual licensed in the future (of course, if it would be a decision).
The main problem is importing GFDL materials to my project and treating them as GFDL-only. So, even article is GFDL-only, every author (even it is a small number of them, not all of them are my friends reachable by phone call) should agree to give permissions under CC-BY-SA, too to Wikipedia (until the end of transition) "if Wikipedia moves to dual licensing".
BTW, it would be really useful to write some short manual for GFDL and other wikis: what means what and what would be the best to do according to the possible transition of Wikipedia to the specific dual-licensing.
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.)
As an owner of an (experimental) partial fork of WP, I'm also interested in this issue.
My interpretation is that the migration clauses in GFDL 1.3 apply to all wikis, not just Wikimedia's. So anyone running a GFDL wiki (assuming "or later version" text is intact), can migrate the content to cc-by-sa anytime up to the deadline. This includes WP content that has been modified on my wiki.
Obviously to do so before Wikimedia has decided if it is going to do so would be a bad idea if one wants to continue to bring updates across from WP (as this would be impossible after the deadline has passed).
Also, AIUI the dual-license thing is a private arrangement between the FSF and Wikimedia? Therefore I do not have to honour it - I could in theory migrate to cc-by-sa only? However this would make it difficult or impossible to bring updates on my wiki back over into Wikipedia (so I probably won't do this - I want to maintain bidirectional sharing)
However IANAL, so I would appreciate any comments on whether my interpretation is flawed in some way.
Rgrds.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM, David Claughton dave@encoresoup.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since you could delete the GFDL-only version and remake it as a dual licensed version after the switchover (assuming we do switchover), I can't see how there could a problem. (Assuming you are the only person to modify it, otherwise you need to be careful about what licenses the modifications are released under.)
As an owner of an (experimental) partial fork of WP, I'm also interested in this issue.
My interpretation is that the migration clauses in GFDL 1.3 apply to all wikis, not just Wikimedia's. So anyone running a GFDL wiki (assuming "or later version" text is intact), can migrate the content to cc-by-sa anytime up to the deadline. This includes WP content that has been modified on my wiki.
Obviously to do so before Wikimedia has decided if it is going to do so would be a bad idea if one wants to continue to bring updates across from WP (as this would be impossible after the deadline has passed).
The problem is that my site can't be treated as a "massive collaborative site" (or whatever the name is) because it is a strictly editorial work. As the date for importing GFDL-only texts passed, as well as because of the first reason, I am not sure that I would be able to use any of transitional conditions. But, Thomas gave a good answer how to solve it; however, the licensing issue for me is an easier one because I am translating articles, which means that I don't need to care to any minor change and to be very sure that I wouldn't have much more job after the migration than to rewrite dates of translation.
At the other side, I think that your wiki may be treated as a "massive collaborative site", which may be inside of transitional terms. But, again, it would be good to hear Mike for such cases.
Also, AIUI the dual-license thing is a private arrangement between the FSF and Wikimedia? Therefore I do not have to honour it - I could in theory migrate to cc-by-sa only? However this would make it difficult or impossible to bring updates on my wiki back over into Wikipedia (so I probably won't do this - I want to maintain bidirectional sharing)
According to the license conditions, you are able to do so.
While I understand why CC-BY-SA-only materials may be imported, I agree with you that the best option is to leave sites double-licensed, if possible. In the cases of small sites with very strict editorial work it is possible to leave materials straight dual-licensed, while any massive collaborative site should switch to Wikipedia-like dual licensing (which means that CC-BY-SA-only texts may be imported).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org