I'm forwarding this to Wikipedia and Foundation-l since the poll could potentially make Wikinews incompatible with Wikipedia or any of our other projects. Currently, content from Wikinews can be used in Wikipedia (though not the other way around). CC-BY-SA is not compatible with the GNU FDL, so this would not longer be the case.
Earlier polls and discussion are at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
Angela.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Amgine amgine@saewyc.net Date: Aug 30, 2005 11:57 PM Subject: [Wikinews-l] Licensure straw poll To: Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@wikimedia.org
A poll is being held at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Licensure_Poll on whether or not to adopt the CC-by-sa 2.5 licensure for the Wikinews project.
This licensure allows any use of the articles so long as attribution credit is given to the Wikinews project and any derivations or further developments are released under an identical licensure.
The poll was suggested by jwales, and is short so the board may have an idea of how the community feels in time for their next meeting. Please visit the poll and vote; comment on the discussion page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews/Licensure_Poll).
Amgine ___________
On 8/30/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I'm forwarding this to Wikipedia and Foundation-l since the poll could potentially make Wikinews incompatible with Wikipedia or any of our other projects. Currently, content from Wikinews can be used in Wikipedia (though not the other way around). CC-BY-SA is not compatible with the GNU FDL, so this would not longer be the case.
For what it's worth, it makes little sense for Wikipedia to use Wikinews content beyond what's considered fair use. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia and tries to not have any encyclopedic articles, and the Wikipedia "current events" section is really short enough of a mention that it's fair use at worst and wholly original at best.
-ilya haykinson en.wikinews
Still, there are other projects using GFDL that would benefit from a correct - and clear - compatibility. Plus, we should not stick to your case only and I am certain that there are some wp contributors who would be happy to be able to re-use wn content.
Ilya Haykinson a écrit :
On 8/30/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I'm forwarding this to Wikipedia and Foundation-l since the poll could potentially make Wikinews incompatible with Wikipedia or any of our other projects. Currently, content from Wikinews can be used in Wikipedia (though not the other way around). CC-BY-SA is not compatible with the GNU FDL, so this would not longer be the case.
For what it's worth, it makes little sense for Wikipedia to use Wikinews content beyond what's considered fair use. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia and tries to not have any encyclopedic articles, and the Wikipedia "current events" section is really short enough of a mention that it's fair use at worst and wholly original at best.
-ilya haykinson en.wikinews _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Still, there are other projects using GFDL that would benefit from a correct - and clear - compatibility. Plus, we should not stick to your case only and I am certain that there are some wp contributors who would be happy to be able to re-use wn content.
Ilya Haykinson a écrit :
On 8/30/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I'm forwarding this to Wikipedia and Foundation-l since the poll could potentially make Wikinews incompatible with Wikipedia or any of our other projects. Currently, content from Wikinews can be used in Wikipedia (though not the other way around). CC-BY-SA is not compatible with the GNU FDL, so this would not longer be the case.
For what it's worth, it makes little sense for Wikipedia to use Wikinews content beyond what's considered fair use. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia and tries to not have any encyclopedic articles, and the Wikipedia "current events" section is really short enough of a mention that it's fair use at worst and wholly original at best.
-ilya haykinson en.wikinews _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2005/8/31, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com:
Still, there are other projects using GFDL that would benefit from a correct - and clear - compatibility. Plus, we should not stick to your case only and I am certain that there are some wp contributors who would be happy to be able to re-use wn content.
Okay, I'll be bold - from a NPOV, the CC licenses are the best for us and GFDL in its current state is way below them. But there's one problem. Reusing content.
Still, note this - do we really want to attach 10 pages of GFDL license to our print edition? I think a simple "Licensed under CC-By-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/etc/etc)" would be okay - and this is exactly what a text licensed under CC needs.
Dariusz Siedlecki a écrit :
2005/8/31, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com:
Still, there are other projects using GFDL that would benefit from a correct - and clear - compatibility. Plus, we should not stick to your case only and I am certain that there are some wp contributors who would be happy to be able to re-use wn content.
Okay, I'll be bold - from a NPOV, the CC licenses are the best for us and GFDL in its current state is way below them. But there's one problem. Reusing content.
Still, note this - do we really want to attach 10 pages of GFDL license to our print edition? I think a simple "Licensed under CC-By-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/etc/etc)" would be okay - and this is exactly what a text licensed under CC needs.
Sure, but the CC licenses are not that clear ! Do you now what they mean when they say they are not "revokable" for example. We just talked about it for 2 hours on IRC yesterday.
The CC licenses were not meant to be used precisely for Wikinews and they don't adopt the exact vocabulary we need to describe what we do. We have a chance to make it perfect, so let's do it rather than to rely on third parties legal work.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
Dariusz Siedlecki a écrit :
Still, note this - do we really want to attach 10 pages of GFDL license to our print edition? I think a simple "Licensed under CC-By-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/etc/etc)" would be okay - and this is exactly what a text licensed under CC needs.
Sure, but the CC licenses are not that clear ! Do you now what they mean when they say they are not "revokable" for example. We just talked about it for 2 hours on IRC yesterday.
The CC licenses were not meant to be used precisely for Wikinews and they don't adopt the exact vocabulary we need to describe what we do. We have a chance to make it perfect, so let's do it rather than to rely on third parties legal work.
The one huge problem about rolling your own license is that you can also introduce errors into the license that are unintended, or even cause unintended problems that might cause heartburn in the future. The advertisement clause in the BSD license is a good example, which is viral and can grow incredibly long if done properly. The fact that the GFDL is incompatable with the GPL (you can't use non trivial GFDL'd software examples in a GPL'd computer program, for example) is one that is really weird, particularly considering the two different licenses are written by the same organization.
The usual Free Software Foundation "loophole" on this issue is the "use this version of the license or later adopted version". This is more of a cop-out, and something that can cause further legal messes. It does, however, allow the chance that some time in the future a custom license could be merged with the GFDL in a much better licensing arrangement, provided the GFDL "upgrade" fixes some of the issues that most Wikinews users are complaining about with that license. Or fix the problems that may come up when the draft license is issued, from those kinds of things listed above.
Using a "standard" license means that the defense of using it will have been vetted in legal circles, something that the GPL is currently going through with the infamous SCO Linux case. Defending the license also gets popular and legal suport (sometimes) from the people who wrote the license. If we go it alone and write our own license, we don't get that sort of protection and instead put the authors and (if approved by the board) the Foundation board to stand alone with the license. On the other hand, if it is well written and very clear as well as reasonable, it may get adopted by other groups besides Wikinews.
The usual Free Software Foundation "loophole" on this issue is the "use this version of the license or later adopted version". This is more of a cop-out, and something that can cause further legal messes. It does, however, allow the chance that some time in the future a custom license could be merged with the GFDL in a much better licensing arrangement, provided the GFDL "upgrade" fixes some of the issues that most Wikinews users are complaining about with that license. Or fix the problems that may come up when the draft license is issued, from those kinds of things listed above.
We can very well provide such a versioning in the License... but since it would be a WNL versioning, we would be able to make it evolve to correct problems instead of relying on third parties like CC or the FSF.
Using a "standard" license means that the defense of using it will have been vetted in legal circles, something that the GPL is currently going through with the infamous SCO Linux case. Defending the license also gets popular and legal suport (sometimes) from the people who wrote the license. If we go it alone and write our own license, we don't get that sort of protection and instead put the authors and (if approved by the board) the Foundation board to stand alone with the license. On the other hand, if it is well written and very clear as well as reasonable, it may get adopted by other groups besides Wikinews.
Well, besides me, there already are many lawyers, law teachers and judges helping th e foundation today. They are helping and there is no reason they would not defend us.
A license is simply a kind of contract, lawyers write them everyday.
What we need is only a well-written one that would be tailored for what we do, that could help us understand the issues at stake, and that would help to chose others licenses in the end.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org