Best I can tell the last official statement from the FSF on the GSFDL was over two years ago (back when we were running mediawiki 1.7) there have been the odd unofficial statements but they came to nothing. This being the case we must assume the GSFDL is dead or so comatose as to be out of the picture (not entirely a bad thing the license was painfully bad).
The moves to try and get some form of CC-BY-SA /GFDL merger appear to have ground to a halt.
So what can we do. Ignoring the situation isn't a long term viable option.
There is the stick. We could prevent say further GFDL only image uploads and produce a press release explaining why.
Other options are putting together a group to actively lobby the FSF to get something done but I'm not sure they would react to that to well.
So what to do?
geni wrote:
Best I can tell the last official statement from the FSF on the GSFDL was over two years ago (back when we were running mediawiki 1.7) there have been the odd unofficial statements but they came to nothing. This being the case we must assume the GSFDL is dead or so comatose as to be out of the picture (not entirely a bad thing the license was painfully bad).
The moves to try and get some form of CC-BY-SA /GFDL merger appear to have ground to a halt.
So what can we do. Ignoring the situation isn't a long term viable option.
There is the stick. We could prevent say further GFDL only image uploads and produce a press release explaining why.
Other options are putting together a group to actively lobby the FSF to get something done but I'm not sure they would react to that to well.
So what to do?
The issue is being worked on and is not nearly dead or comatose. I suppose the GSFDL might be, most of the discussion I'm aware of has been focused simply on an updated release of the GFDL. But we've been talking to the FSF for the last several months and appreciate their efforts to work with us. Right now I believe we're waiting to hear back from them and firm up some timing issues. Erik and Mike have been handling much of this on the Wikimedia side, and they can elaborate if there are new developments that are ready to share. I don't think we'll see an outright merger, the two licenses will always exist independently, but I'm optimistic that there will be a way for us to deal with the barriers between our GFDL content and our CC-BY-SA content.
--Michael Snow
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The moves to try and get some form of CC-BY-SA /GFDL merger appear to have ground to a halt.
Not at all. We gave our approval to the final proposed language for the GFDL 1.3 last week, and it's currently undergoing final legal review at the FSF. Hopefully it will be only a matter of weeks now for the FDL 1.3 to be published.
2008/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The moves to try and get some form of CC-BY-SA /GFDL merger appear to have ground to a halt.
Not at all. We gave our approval to the final proposed language for the GFDL 1.3 last week, and it's currently undergoing final legal review at the FSF. Hopefully it will be only a matter of weeks now for the FDL 1.3 to be published.
You've predicted dates before. They didn't work out so well.
Aside from that are you saying that there is going to be no draft version published?
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
You've predicted dates before. They didn't work out so well.
Two issues have been revisited in the past couple of months, which in the first case came as a surprise to us. But both sides seem happy and prepared to go forward at this point.
Aside from that are you saying that there is going to be no draft version published?
I don't believe the FSF plans to publish any new draft prior to release.
I don't believe the FSF plans to publish any new draft prior to release.
Have they published any drafts? As far as I'm aware, all the planning so far has been done behind closed doors. There is a very real possibility that the community will reject the license once it is published and you'll have to start again.
2008/10/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Have they published any drafts?
The FSF has published a draft of a GFDL V2 and a simplified GFDL here a couple of years ago: http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
The GFDL 1.3 they have proposed to us is, AFAICT, a verbatim copy of the GFDL 1.2 with a single additional section on re-licensing. The GFDL V2 draft is a very significant evolution of the GFDL. The re-licensing section is the part that the FSF is somewhat protective of, as per earlier discussions on this list. However, the discussions of the past few months have circled exactly around the issues that we considered potentially problematic for adoption by us and by others, so I hope that we will have been able to accommodate most concerns that could potentially arise.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The moves to try and get some form of CC-BY-SA /GFDL merger appear to have ground to a halt.
Not at all. We gave our approval to the final proposed language for the GFDL 1.3 last week, and it's currently undergoing final legal review at the FSF. Hopefully it will be only a matter of weeks now for the FDL 1.3 to be published.
Does this mean that no attention was given to the fact that some users of the FDL find the terms of CC-By-SA 3.0 unacceptable and have deliberately not licensed their works under that license?
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Does this mean that no attention was given to the fact that some users of the FDL find the terms of CC-By-SA 3.0 unacceptable and have deliberately not licensed their works under that license?
Which terms are you referring to here, Gregory?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Does this mean that no attention was given to the fact that some users of the FDL find the terms of CC-By-SA 3.0 unacceptable and have deliberately not licensed their works under that license?
Which terms are you referring to here, Gregory?
Why debate the license terms here and now?
There have been a number of discussions on a number of occasions. There are people who have explicitly rejected cc-by-sa-3.0 for their own works for a multitude of reasons, for both personal and public interest reasons. The FDL and CC-By-SA licenses are not precisely isomorphic. There exist many images on commons explicitly noted that they are only licensed under the terms of the FDL-1.2. I do not believe these facts are in dispute.
Since there exist people who have consciously rejected the CC-By-SA 3.0, for whatever reason, the prospect of simply declaring their works to be under license terms that have explicitly rejected would appear to be both legally and ethically suspect. It does not sound like any consideration has been given to this subject, which is most disappointing considering the amount of time which has passed and the number of times this concern has been raised.
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Why debate the license terms here and now?
Because CC has tried to address some of the concerns and objections, it would be good to know what you perceive as the key remaining issues. I've found CC generally to be very responsive and open to the needs of the Wikimedia community.
While the release of the FDL 1.3 is an important step in a process, it's not the end of that process. Please see the original resolution by the Board last year on the licensing change:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/wiki/Resolution:License_up...
"It is hereby resolved that:
* The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license; * Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing."
This continues to be the plan. We do believe we've found a potential compromise with regard to future use of the FDL, which is part of what the FSF and WMF have been working on recently.
Erik
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
While the release of the FDL 1.3 is an important step in a process, it's not the end of that process. Please see the original resolution by the Board last year on the licensing change:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/wiki/Resolution:License_up...
"It is hereby resolved that:
- The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be
modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
- Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will
initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing."
This continues to be the plan. We do believe we've found a potential compromise with regard to future use of the FDL, which is part of what the FSF and WMF have been working on recently.
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may relicense the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"), so the WMF's "final decision" is basically irrelevant.
2008/10/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may relicense the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"),
Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/10/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may relicense the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"),
Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
I'd assume that assumptions are made on old drafts because there are no new ones. I find it a little bit strange that the process for a free license (open content) is held behind closed doors.
Bryan
2008/10/18 Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com:
I'd assume that assumptions are made on old drafts because there are no new ones. I find it a little bit strange that the process for a free license (open content) is held behind closed doors.
It's not our preference, yes. There are two complicating factors here:
* We have no control over the text of the FDL 1.3. The Free Software Foundation is the only organization who can exercise that control. They have gracefully agreed to work with us in meeting our needs. * The Free Documentation License, as its name implies, was developed for software documentation, not for wikis. (That's what's been causing many licensing related headaches in the first place.) It continues to be used for software documentation. The Free Software Foundation wants to protect and support that legitimate use.
The approach the FSF has taken is to focus on a simple FDL 1.3 release, which essentially answers our request for a migration strategy. But in order to meet its own needs for the FDL, it has decided that a fully open development process for the licensing terms exposes it to unacceptable risks in protecting the interests of the free software community. We understand that decision, and we've worked within that constraint.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/10/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may
relicense
the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"),
Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
I'm making an assumption based on the fact that I can't imagine the FSF supporting a license which gives special privileges to the WMF, and considering that you "don't believe the FSF plans to publish any new draft prior to release", making assumptions based on drafts from two years ago, combined with what I know about the parties involved, is about the best I can do.
I can understand the need for secrecy during the drafting process, though.
Erik Moeller wrote:
If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
I am sorry, I know I am certainly the last person who would have a right to grumble...
But seriously, I am simply failing to parse that sentence; and somehow I suspect there is something significant behind it. Could someone forego the flip responses, and rephrase it in a fashion that would clarify the thinking behind that sentence?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
I am sorry, I know I am certainly the last person who would have a right to grumble...
But seriously, I am simply failing to parse that sentence; and somehow I suspect there is something significant behind it. Could someone forego the flip responses, and rephrase it in a fashion that would clarify the thinking behind that sentence?
It means that the potential relicensing will be carefully circumscribed. It won't simply allow anyone to relicense GFDL content under CC-BY-SA anytime they want.
--Michael Snow
2008/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/10/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may relicense the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"),
Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?
Hoi, I would be seriously disappointed if the language of this deal explicitly name Wikipedia. A proper text that allows for the migration of licenses of content should be open for any project and any organisation under the same rules. Given the size of the WMF and the urgency of the matter, I am really happy for the WMF to take a leadership role in this. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:51 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/10/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may
relicense
the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may relicense the work"),
Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing language to prevent others from doing so.
Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/10/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?
It generally speaks of content previously published elsewhere; it doesn't make specific reference to Wikipedia or Wikimedia anywhere.
2008/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Why debate the license terms here and now?
Because CC has tried to address some of the concerns and objections, it would be good to know what you perceive as the key remaining issues. I've found CC generally to be very responsive and open to the needs of the Wikimedia community.
There have been no changes to the license text to do so and in some cases it would be impossible to do so.
Issues are among others: Hard vs soft copyleft the GFDL 1.2 only images People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness makes conventional commercial use tricky.
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Hard vs soft copyleft
The actual text of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA is not substantially different with regard to the copyleft of adaptations. The official position of Creative Commons on this issue is reflected in the statement of intent regarding the CC-BY-SA license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent
I don't think there's any basis on which to argue that Creative Commons Intent is substantially different from the FSF's with the GFDL, and this statement explicitly promises that CC-BY-SA will never be re-worded to have a "softer" copyleft.
That said, we've been continuing the dialog with CC about how to build a more explicit hard copyleft. I strongly believe that a strong copyleft option for photography needs to exist, but to me, this is a separate problem. The GFDL doesn't solve this, and as has been pointed out here before, the current beliefs and practices (some people believe that combinations of any kind need to be copyleft, but we mix GFDL text with content under different licenses) are inherently contradictory. A solution addressing this problem explicitly is needed.
Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as opposed to "the exact same license".
the GFDL 1.2 only images People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness makes conventional commercial use tricky.
I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3. Whether or not we want to continue using "GFDL 1.2 only" content is a separate decision. Partially, this seems to be a debate for the Commons community about whether GFDL 1.2 only is "free enough", given the encumbrances you mention.
2008/10/19 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Hard vs soft copyleft
The actual text of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA is not substantially different with regard to the copyleft of adaptations. The official position of Creative Commons on this issue is reflected in the statement of intent regarding the CC-BY-SA license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent
I don't think there's any basis on which to argue that Creative Commons Intent is substantially different from the FSF's with the GFDL, and this statement explicitly promises that CC-BY-SA will never be re-worded to have a "softer" copyleft.
So CC are saying that they may chose to drift towards harder copyleft but may equally chose not to. That is not an equivalent of a hard copyleft position.
That said, we've been continuing the dialog with CC about how to build a more explicit hard copyleft. I strongly believe that a strong copyleft option for photography needs to exist, but to me, this is a separate problem. The GFDL doesn't solve this, and as has been pointed out here before, the current beliefs and practices (some people believe that combinations of any kind need to be copyleft, but we mix GFDL text with content under different licenses) are inherently contradictory. A solution addressing this problem explicitly is needed.
Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as opposed to "the exact same license".
I prefer to deal with at least proposed license texts that have actually been written. What CC are or are not opposed to is secondary to what they are actually doing or are committed to doing. For the time being we cannot assume that CC will move their SA license any close to hard copyleft than they have already done. Of course not everyone will view this as a problem. There is a fair degree of support for soft copyleft in some areas.
the GFDL 1.2 only images People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness makes conventional commercial use tricky.
I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3.
No idea I haven't seen it. Which is another problem. I'm sure you are doing you best but how many actually active in the field people do you have who have seen this thing?
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
So CC are saying that they may chose to drift towards harder copyleft but may equally chose not to. That is not an equivalent of a hard copyleft position.
Given that the _substance_ of the actual legal text is essentially the same, we're talking here about the interpretations of very similar legal language. Before CC put out this statement, critics argued that adopting CC-BY-SA could put you at risk, because CC might openly adopt positions or add clarifications that weaken your position. And in that context, the CC statement is key. It includes commitments such as: "Any clarification of whether a use constitutes an adaptation for the purposes of Attribution-ShareAlike licenses may only broaden the scope of uses considered adaptations rather than collections."
If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a thorough argument to that effect.
2008/10/19 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a thorough argument to that effect.
The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so. CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have not.
The FSF on the other hand is more predicable if more troublesome in some areas.
2008/10/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/10/19 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a thorough argument to that effect.
The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so. CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have not.
The CC have the advantage of being present and active on our mailing lists.
The FSF on the other hand is more predicable if more troublesome in some areas.
Yes, if you ever ask them about their licenses they answer "Reply hazy, try again later, ask your attorney." Saying "our attorney is Mike Godwin and your license makes his head hurt" doesn't seem to affect this.
- d.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:33 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/10/19 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a thorough argument to that effect.
The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so. CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have not.
The CC have the advantage of being present and active on our mailing lists.
Hi there. Erik and I (and others) have been discussing strong (or stronger, eg use in any libre context as opposed to only in a context with the same license) for some months. I owe some emails on this right now...
IMO (non-lawyer) CC licenses aren't crystal clear on this now (look at the examples enumerated in definitions of adaptations and collections), and it just makes sense to clarify this in the direction of stronger copyleft for images. It has taken me some years of listening to arguments about this on various CC and WMF lists to come to this conclusion, but in the end, it's pretty simple given typical [re]use of photos -- if you don't want stronger copyleft, use CC BY or CC BY-SA and make an exception for contextual use.
The above isn't a clear direct commitment to write strong copyleft for images into CC BY-SA, sorry, but I hope it is a pretty clear indicator. Assuming we do this, it will take some time to get to a new version 3.x or 4.0 that explicitly includes strong copyleft for images. In addition to getting to getting that just right, we have to consider whether it impacts definitions in other CC licenses, and probably much else (see IANAL above). And the last thing I'd want from a trustworthy license steward is rapid change.
Mike (For context I'm roughly Erik's peer at CC and have been the main person working on getting more recognition of libre licenses and their importance such as the BY-SA statement of intent previously mentioned in this thread and the free cultural works branding now on libre CC licenses.)
2008/10/18 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so. CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have not.
This argument implies that the GFDL is any more a strong copyleft license than CC-BY-SA is. I see no reason to assume that is the case.
Yes, we need to work towards a good solution for strong copyleft on embedded media. CC appears to me to be more logically positioned to help us solve this problem, because it fits much more neatly in their mission focus (helping creators of media of all types) than in the FSF's (supporting free software), and because their license release cycles tend to be significantly shorter than the FSF's.
Of course you can argue that the CC approach in _general_ has a bias against freedom and a bias in favor of restrictions. I think that's a completely legitimate argument, and I would love to see CC become more proactive in supporting freedom. Their explicit designation of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as Free Cultural Works licenses (with a link to the definition) is an important step in that direction, and I do know from my personal interactions with CC that there are people in the organization that would like CC to be more actively promoting the free licenses over the non-free ones.
Becoming more closely involved with CC is a great way for us to become an important voice for freedom. For example, I think we can successfully promote a view that non-free licenses are inappropriate for collaborative communities.
But irrespective of that, CC has no incentive _not_ to help us solve the strong copyleft problem: even when viewed as a purely pragmatic organization, it fits completely within their mission scope to solve problems like this one. Whether that solution should consist of modifying CC-BY-SA itself is, in my opinion, legitimately debatable, though as I said, it seems to be the simplest solution and reduces license proliferation, which CC is explicitly opposed to at this point.
What I do not agree with is the notion that GFDL somehow represents an actual solution to the problem. That understates the massive problems associated with reuse of GFDL licensed electronic documents and compatibility with CC-BY-SA resources, it quietly ignores the inherent contradiction in a strong copyleft interpretation of the GFDL, and it overstates the significance of weakly varying interpretations of essentially equivalent legal texts.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as opposed to "the exact same license".
the GFDL 1.2 only images People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness makes conventional commercial use tricky.
I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3. Whether or not we want to continue using "GFDL 1.2 only" content is a separate decision. Partially, this seems to be a debate for the Commons community about whether GFDL 1.2 only is "free enough", given the encumbrances you mention.
That's a scary comment, especially considering the comment above about CC-BY-SA 3.1 and the knowledge that you "initiated" the "Definition of Free Cultural Works".
Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition? http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't find anything about the current situation.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition? http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't find anything about the current situation.
It's based on community consensus. See http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
Angela
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition? http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I
couldn't
find anything about the current situation.
It's based on community consensus. See http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who owns the website? Who owns the trademark?
I guess I see the answer to the first question: http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might be considering the world's first "copyright license that anyone can edit". What a disastrous idea that would be.
I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
John
Anthony skrev:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition? http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I
couldn't
find anything about the current situation.
It's based on community consensus. See http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who owns the website? Who owns the trademark?
I guess I see the answer to the first question: http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might be considering the world's first "copyright license that anyone can edit". What a disastrous idea that would be. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is really only useful for evaluating if a particular license qualifies as free content. In all other aspects of evaluating free content it is too vague to be useful in practice. I don't think there will be any notable disagreements in the community over the conclusions in the former cases. And in the latter cases, it is so open to interpretation that their are no real conclusions.
Birgitte SB
--- On Sun, 10/19/08, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From: John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The license situation To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 12:28 PM I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
John
Anthony skrev:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela
beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Which leads me to another question. Who
controls this definition?
http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit
of the history, but I
couldn't
find anything about the current situation.
It's based on community consensus. See http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who
owns the website? Who owns
the trademark?
I guess I see the answer to the first question: http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might
be considering the
world's first "copyright license that anyone
can edit". What a disastrous
idea that would be. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
2008/10/19 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Of course, some of "the community" have ideas on what licenses mean that are frankly on crack. We've had people make admin on en:wp without understanding that GFDL works they create can be used outside Wikimedia.
- d.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/19 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
We are de facto ignoring certain parts of the licensing policy in its strict sense of reading. But nobody cares any way, so it doesn't really matter.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/19 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
We are de facto ignoring certain parts of the licensing policy in its strict sense of reading. But nobody cares any way, so it doesn't really matter.
Is that sarcasm, or do you really think it doesn't matter that licensing policy isn't being followed?
David Gerard wrote:
2008/10/19 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates and how it will react on something like this.
I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Of course, some of "the community" have ideas on what licenses mean that are frankly on crack. We've had people make admin on en:wp without understanding that GFDL works they create can be used outside Wikimedia.
To be fair, it's hard to find a succinct, non-legalese explanation. =]
The closest I could find to a plainly phrased description of Wikipedia's licensing status linked from the front page is from Wikipedia:Copyrights, to wit: "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed /so long as/ the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)."
But this sentence is the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the article. There's a status-of-this-page box at the top, a billion disambiguation hatnotes, a full disclaimer paragraph with bolded intro, then the nondescript/nondelineated beginning of the actual page, and even then an analogy of our still-to-be-discussed copyright status to free software's copyright status, and a mention that this is related to the as-yet-undefined term "copyleft". Then after all that you get to the quoted sentence above which actually says something about our copyrights. =]
-Mark
That you request a possible mgration does not solve the real issue, you can't relicense content you do not own. I tried to get a clear answare in the past if such a relicensing is considered a single sided renegotiation of a contract, and given the described scenario, ie relicensing of the Wikimedia projects, very few in Noraway are willing to bet on the legalty of the project. The only one I've found are someone deeply involved in Creative Commons, and one other person that guessed it might be legal if the contributors was given the opportunity to opt out. Note that if one contributor opts out then all later revisions has to be purged.
Note also that in Norway the law explicitly states that the authors are to be given credit, and this isn't something they can release any publisher from doing. One person I've asked said it like this; you can use a non-by attribution license but still the publisher has to give you credit.
Right now we tell the newspapers to give credit to "Wikipedia" but this is in fact a little bit fishy, but it is the best we can do given the present code - we can't tell them exactly who wrote the content. Note also that the problem isn't really much easier when we have to deal with "main authors" and "minor authors".
My guess is that such a relicensing isn't legal in Norway.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Why debate the license terms here and now?
Because CC has tried to address some of the concerns and objections, it would be good to know what you perceive as the key remaining issues. I've found CC generally to be very responsive and open to the needs of the Wikimedia community.
While the release of the FDL 1.3 is an important step in a process, it's not the end of that process. Please see the original resolution by the Board last year on the licensing change:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/wiki/Resolution:License_up...
"It is hereby resolved that:
- The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be
modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
- Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will
initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing."
This continues to be the plan. We do believe we've found a potential compromise with regard to future use of the FDL, which is part of what the FSF and WMF have been working on recently.
Erik
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Right now we tell the newspapers to give credit to "Wikipedia" but this is in fact a little bit fishy, but it is the best we can do given the present code - we can't tell them exactly who wrote the content. Note also that the problem isn't really much easier when we have to deal with "main authors" and "minor authors".
We do not tell them to credit "Wikipedia". "Wikipedia" does not create content, it hosts it. We tell people to credit "Wikipedia contributors" and add a link to the article, which also gives a link to the history page with all the authors named explicitly.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
That you request a possible mgration does not solve the real issue, you can't relicense content you do not own. I tried to get a clear answare in the past if such a relicensing is considered a single sided renegotiation of a contract, and given the described scenario, ie relicensing of the Wikimedia projects, very few in Noraway are willing to bet on the legalty of the project. The only one I've found are someone deeply involved in Creative Commons, and one other person that guessed it might be legal if the contributors was given the opportunity to opt out.
The whole concept is rather sketchy, but the powers that be seem to want to give it a try anyway. I'm not sure I blame them, since GFDL 1.2 isn't being followed anyway. Under the draft text one possibility would have been to not relicense the content but to require new contributors to dual-license their contributions, and let third parties use the content under CC at their own risk. Not sure if that strategy would be possible under the new 1.3 or not.
Note that if one contributor opts out then all later revisions has to be purged.
That's certainly not true under US copyright law, though many people think it is. One of them will probably reply to this post telling me I'm wrong, at which point I'm going to ignore them. So don't consider my silence as acquiescence.
Anthony
On Saturday 18 October 2008 19:08:29 geni wrote:
So what can we do. Ignoring the situation isn't a long term viable option.
There is the stick. We could prevent say further GFDL only image uploads and produce a press release explaining why.
Other options are putting together a group to actively lobby the FSF to get something done but I'm not sure they would react to that to well.
So what to do?
Donate to FSF with the instructions that the money must be spend on publishing a new version of GFDL that is compatible with CC?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org