Robert Hornung writes:
What I'm talking about here is a simply presumption that you don't even need to involve the FSF in this discussion, that that all you simply need to perform is a mass license migration, ignoring the fact that all of the content is currently licensed under the GFDL.
You must have confused this conversation with some other conversation. All of the talk of migration here is based in *actual, ongoing discussions* among FSF, CC, and WMF. FSF would have to agree to any version of the migration that we're talking about. Were you unaware of these discussions?
What I expect that the FSF is going to do with the GFDL is to work out some legal language to make it work with Wikipedia a bit better.
Right -- and FSF is considering doing this by creating a CC-compatible license.
I certainly don't know how you could get GPL/CC-by-SA compatibility to work at all.
Both licenses would have to be revised in order to be harmonized, everyone agrees.
I'll add here that I add contributions to Wikimedia projects using my actual given name, rather than using a psuedonym. One of the reasons I do this is explicitly because I do assert copyright over my contributions, and to make the point that I can legally claim each edit I've performed.
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
--Mike
On 23/11/2007, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
And if even a handful of oldtimes want their stuff removed? Have you any idea how much work that would involve? While we might have the man hours they could be better spent.
On Nov 22, 2007 11:50 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
Why wait? There are people who want to remove their content right now. The longer we wait to remove it, the harder it's going to be.
Mike Godwin wrote:
Robert Hornung writes:
I'll add here that I add contributions to Wikimedia projects using my actual given name, rather than using a psuedonym. One of the reasons I do this is explicitly because I do assert copyright over my contributions, and to make the point that I can legally claim each edit I've performed.
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
--Mike
With over 2000 edits on en.wikipedia alone, and 5000 on en.wikibooks.... over 4 years old in some cases... I think that would be quite the feat to accomplish from a technical viewpoint. There is hardly a part of en.wikibooks that I haven't touched at least on some level. Mind you, I'm not trying to say I'm going to be a PITA on this, but a presumption that existing copyright claims are irrelevant and can be effectively ignored is going to be something tough to accomplish and IMHO a legal nightmare. I know for a fact that I am not alone here on this declaration of copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects.
My contributions have been under the terms of the GFDL, and whatever the FSF says is the "or later version" I will respect in terms of fitting to the fine points of the GFDL. There is no way I can "take the license away" at this point, but I certainly am going to expect that the terms of the GFDL are followed on my contributions. That is the only point I'm trying to make, and suggesting that some sort of "community discussion" on Wikipedia is needed once the revised version of the GFDL is available is not really a discussion that I see as something either productive or even necessary. Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
-- Robert Horning
Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points, what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides wanting to be a pain in the ass?
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points, what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides wanting to be a pain in the ass?
--Andrew Whitworth
Let me second that request (without the part about the pain in the ass tough). I really would like to understand better why you would consider a cc-by-sa license not acceptable.
Ant
On 23/11/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Let me second that request (without the part about the pain in the ass tough). I really would like to understand better why you would consider a cc-by-sa license not acceptable.
And precisely what the legal case would be if it were also called "GNU Free Documentation License" and issued by the FSF.
- d.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points, what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides wanting to be a pain in the ass?
--Andrew Whitworth
Let me second that request (without the part about the pain in the ass tough). I really would like to understand better why you would consider a cc-by-sa license not acceptable.
Ant
Some of this is that I get very confused when I talk about Creative Commons licenses. You are talking about a specific license here, but that is IMHO one of the problems with this license.
I've known the Free Software Foundation, and RMS in particular, for some time now. I may not agree with everything that RMS stands for, but he and the FSF is generally predictable and RMS has been very consistent for some time on the fundamental issues of intellectual property freedom. I don't see the Free Software Foundation changing their licenses in a dramatic fashion to lose sight of that basic quest for Intellectual Property (software and the written word, but also trademarks and patents too) freedom. In this regard, I suppose I can say that I don't have the same level of trust with Creative Commons...even if other may put the same or more trust that Creative Commons on this front.
For example, there are several non-commercial only licenses in the Creative Commons suite. The Free Software Foundation has been very consistent that non-commercial use only is actually harmful to the basic freedoms of IP content and has never endorsed any such license... and all of the FSF licenses openly encourage for-profit activities with content that uses their licenses. They have also encouraged (unlike the WMF I might add) others to make a commercial profit... if possible... with intellectual property that actually belongs to the FSF using no other restriction other than simply using the terms of the licenses that they have already published. This even includes the FSF logo I might add as well. That is a very bold statement in terms of freedoms of content.
In all this I'm not saying that the CC-by-SA license is the spawn of the devil or anything else that crass. Some very good work has gone into the development of the Creative Commons licenses, and I generally support the overall goals of those involved in that effort. I just haven't released much content in those licenses, and as a matter of personal preference generally try not to use those licenses unless the people I'm working with insist upon a Creative Commons license of some sort or another. I'm not even really sure I can put it in words more clearly than this, but in short, I really don't like the license. It is also more or less why I like one political party over another, but I feel others are entitled to their own opinions on the subject as long as they don't force me to change my position.
I also think the WMF was very lucky to have started out with the GFDL instead of other licenses, and that the experiment to create an encyclopedia based upon the GFDL has been wildly successful. While many of those involved with Wikipedia and the other sister projects may not really be concerned about licenses and legal nonsense, I do believe that much of the success of these projects has to do with the freedoms enshrined within the GFDL...in spite of problems with the GFDL that we all know that it has.
-- Robert Horning
On Nov 23, 2007 12:34 PM, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Some of this is that I get very confused when I talk about Creative Commons licenses. You are talking about a specific license here, but that is IMHO one of the problems with this license.
Alright. Permit me to suggest that *now is the time to get things straight*. You are now in a fairly deadly serious conversation which turns on the terms and spirit of one and only one Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA. All other CC licenses are irrelevant to this discussion, because nobody in their right mind familiar with the CC licenses would suggest that any other license was similar in spirit to the GFDL. To repeat, only CC-BY-SA is under discussion at this moment.
The terms of the CC-BY-SA license are at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with them. A short summary can be found at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
if you don't have the time to read the details in full.
I've known the Free Software Foundation, and RMS in particular, for some time now. I may not agree with everything that RMS stands for, but he and the FSF is generally predictable and RMS has been very consistent for some time on the fundamental issues of intellectual property freedom. I don't see the Free Software Foundation changing their licenses in a dramatic fashion to lose sight of that basic quest for Intellectual Property (software and the written word, but also trademarks and patents too) freedom. In this regard, I suppose I can say that I don't have the same level of trust with Creative Commons...even if other may put the same or more trust that Creative Commons on this front.
Very well.
However, consider the hypothetical where the FSF published the CC-BY-SA license *as the GFDL 2.0*, word-for-word. Would your trust in the FSF allow you to accept the FSF's trust in Creative Commons? There is negligible moral difference between that scenario and what is actually being discussed. Unless the talks break down (which they always might), a future version of the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA license will have identical or functionally identical texts. This will not require the FSF to change its principles one iota. Would you still be raising all these objections then?
On 24/11/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote: All other CC licenses are irrelevant to this
discussion, because nobody in their right mind familiar with the CC licenses would suggest that any other license was similar in spirit to the GFDL.
CC-wiki license. No sure if anyone used it ever.
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 14:06 +0000, geni wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote: All other CC licenses are irrelevant to this
discussion, because nobody in their right mind familiar with the CC licenses would suggest that any other license was similar in spirit to the GFDL.
CC-wiki license. No sure if anyone used it ever.
The so-called CC-wiki license is just Attribution-ShareAlike. We created a button that says "wiki" on it because some people wanted that. See http://creativecommons.org/license/wiki to obtain such a button and to see that it is just BY-SA.
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points, what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides wanting to be a pain in the ass?
--Andrew Whitworth
To start with, I haven't licensed these contributions under any other license, so introducing something like CC-by-SA is irrelevant to the discussion here other than as a purely philosophical point.
I will state that I have reviewed many of the content licenses that were available before the GFDL, and many that have since come out. One of the reasons (among others) that I contributed to Wikimedia projects was explicitly because the content was using the GFDL license, and it was a conscious decision on my part when I first got involved. This isn't to say that I haven't added a few things to projects (like Wikinews, for instance) that use other licensing arrangements, but I have also not spent considerable amounts of time on those projects either.
More to the point, I support many of the philosophical goals that RMS introduced when the GFDL was originally put together, as I have seen a very real need to have something like a document-oriented GPL-like license. In this regard, I think many of the Creative Commons licenses miss the mark, and there is a strong non-commercial use only philosophy on the part of those working on the Creative Commons licenses. Again, nearly every time I get into a discussion about CC licenses I get all kinds of people that criticize me because I'm not intimately familiar with all of the variations of the CC license suit...but I consider that to also be a major flaw in CC licenses. There are so many that intelligent discussions about them are hard to make. I know you have mentioned a specific license here, but the confusion is very real. Until recently, all the FSF had for licenses was the LGPL, GPL, and GFDL.... and the "domain" of each license was rather clear.
As to why Jimbo went the route of using the GFDL when Wikipedia started out... I'll have to let Jimbo answer that himself. But the decision was made and is irreversable, at least from my perspective. We can't just switch Wikipedia from the GFDL to CC-by-SA tomorrow even if 99.9% of all Wikipedia participants agree to the decision. I highly doubt such a switch would gain even that level of support, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
I know Mike here is trying to suggest that the WMF is talking with the FSF in terms of trying to make something work for Wikipedia, but I'm also saying that you can't please everybody at once either. That seems to be the goal here to dilute the GFDL to something "harmonized" with the CC-by-SA license (or is it another CC license?). Each of these licenses serves a different niche, and I don't necessarily think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia and the other sister projects to "force" a harmonization.
BTW, if I read your reply here Andrew, you are suggesting I'm being a pain in the ass to insist that the original terms I released my content under (the GFDL) is something that can't be casually dismissed by a community vote of some sort. I can't speak for "most people", but I can speak for myself. I want to not only preserve the ability to make my contributions freely available, but I also want to maintain the current philosphy of the GPL/GFDL that prohibits others from preventing future distribution, or asserting copyright on content they haven't written.
I could also go into my long and extensive career in the software industry, but I'll just leave it here that I've written software that I've placed "in the public domain" only to see somebody else claim that they had written it instead.... and I was powerless to force them to change that claim. Most of the GFDL is a round-about way to force an admission that others were involved in the creation of the content if you reuse or modify the content in the future. I've also unfortunately signed some NDAs that prevent me from passing on to the rest of the world some very hard earned knowledge that I've gained over the years, and I find it surprisingly liberating to work with individuals who try to avoid these kind of legal traps. I would like to point out that there are also other benefits of the current GFDL that have not been stated so far on this thread that are getting over looked.
-- Robert Horning
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
More to the point, I support many of the philosophical goals that RMS introduced when the GFDL was originally put together, as I have seen a very real need to have something like a document-oriented GPL-like license. In this regard, I think many of the Creative Commons licenses miss the mark, and there is a strong non-commercial use only philosophy on the part of those working on the Creative Commons licenses. Again, nearly every time I get into a discussion about CC licenses I get all kinds of people that criticize me because I'm not intimately familiar with all of the variations of the CC license suit...but I consider that to also be a major flaw in CC licenses. There are so many that intelligent discussions about them are hard to make. I know you have mentioned a specific license here, but the confusion is very real. Until recently, all the FSF had for licenses was the LGPL, GPL, and GFDL.... and the "domain" of each license was rather clear.
This doesn't really address the actual plan, which is that a future CC-by-sa and a future GFDL will be effectively the same.
1. Does your objection to CC-by-sa hold if it happens to be called "GNU Free Documentation License" and a valid license under the "or later version" provision of Wikipedia's use of the GFDL? Because that's what is being spoken of as a possibility, not any of the other scenarios you allude to. 2. If your objection does hold, why? And, considering this would only happen to contributions under an "or later", what do you think would constitute a reasonable course of action?
I'm not trying to needle you, but the concerns in this thread have largely been widely nonspecific,l science-fictional in their concerns (as Mike put it) or addressing things that aren't planned at all.
- d.
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
en.wikibooks that I haven't touched at least on some level. Mind you, I'm not trying to say I'm going to be a PITA on this, but a presumption that existing copyright claims are irrelevant and can be effectively ignored is going to be something tough to accomplish and IMHO a legal nightmare. I know for a fact that I am not alone here on this declaration of copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects.
Then why did you hit "submit" each time?
My contributions have been under the terms of the GFDL, and whatever the FSF says is the "or later version" I will respect in terms of fitting to the fine points of the GFDL. There is no way I can "take the license away" at this point, but I certainly am going to expect that the terms of the GFDL are followed on my contributions.
I suspect I've lost track of the particular hypothetical offence you are speaking of. A violation of your copyright that you'll win even if the reuser points to "or later version"? If it's not a future version of the GFDL, then "or later version" can't possibly apply.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
en.wikibooks that I haven't touched at least on some level. Mind you, I'm not trying to say I'm going to be a PITA on this, but a presumption that existing copyright claims are irrelevant and can be effectively ignored is going to be something tough to accomplish and IMHO a legal nightmare. I know for a fact that I am not alone here on this declaration of copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects.
Then why did you hit "submit" each time?
Are you asking why I hit "submit" when the presumption was that I could assert copyright on my contributions.... or that somehow what I added to Wikimedia projects was a free gift to the WMF for them to assert copyright over and set terms of that copyright however the WMF board of trustees saw fit?
I don't understand this at all or what you mean here.
My contributions have been under the terms of the GFDL, and whatever the FSF says is the "or later version" I will respect in terms of fitting to the fine points of the GFDL. There is no way I can "take the license away" at this point, but I certainly am going to expect that the terms of the GFDL are followed on my contributions.
I suspect I've lost track of the particular hypothetical offence you are speaking of. A violation of your copyright that you'll win even if the reuser points to "or later version"? If it's not a future version of the GFDL, then "or later version" can't possibly apply.
- d.
I suppose I have. What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA. We are talking in circles here, but I'm pointing out that the GFDL is what it is. I have not agreed to have my contributions released under any other license other than the GFDL, and that is all I'm asserting. The flame is coming from the presumption that I am insisting on maintaining everything under the terms of the GFDL v 1.2, and that is not what I'm saying. I'm simply declaring in a public forum that I am asserting my copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects, and insisting that they remain under the terms of the GFDL.... nothing more or less than simply this. The rest is reaction to this bold statement, as if the GFDL doesn't matter at all.
-- Robert Horning
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
Chapter and verse please?
- d.
BTW, if I read your reply here Andrew, you are suggesting I'm being a pain in the ass to insist that the original terms I released my content under (the GFDL) is something that can't be casually dismissed by a community vote of some sort. I can't speak for "most people", but I can speak for myself. I want to not only preserve the ability to make my contributions freely available, but I also want to maintain the current philosphy of the GPL/GFDL that prohibits others from preventing future distribution, or asserting copyright on content they haven't written.
I only used "pain in the ass" here because you had said it yourself in the message I replied to (although you more politely used the PITA acronym). I certainly am not implying that you are being a PITA here. My point with the question was that the specific case of CC-BY-SA is a very nice analog for the GFDL in many respects. The Share-alike (SA) requirement of the license ensures that it is perpetually viral like the GFDL is, and the By-attribution (BY) aspect ensures that authors receive proper credit for their work. From a philosophical standpoint, this is almost identical to the GFDL. The benefit to using CC-BY-SA over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to the CC-BY-SA, why commons prefers that license for it's images, and why many wikibookians are interested in per-book cross-licensing arrangements with this license.
In short, my question is this: considering that the basic rights and protections are the same for both licenses, and they differ primarily in the way in which they are enforced, does it really matter to you, the content creator, whether we use one or the other? Either way, you are the author receive proper attribution and the assurance that your work will be perpetually available to other for free under the same license. Enforcement has much more to do with WMF as a content host, and the various content consumers then it has to do with the authors of the content anyway.
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth ha scritto:
I only used "pain in the ass" here because you had said it yourself in the message I replied to (although you more politely used the PITA acronym). I certainly am not implying that you are being a PITA here. My point with the question was that the specific case of CC-BY-SA is a very nice analog for the GFDL in many respects. The Share-alike (SA) requirement of the license ensures that it is perpetually viral like the GFDL is, and the By-attribution (BY) aspect ensures that authors receive proper credit for their work. From a philosophical standpoint, this is almost identical to the GFDL. The benefit to using CC-BY-SA over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to the CC-BY-SA, why commons prefers that license for it's images, and why many wikibookians are interested in per-book cross-licensing arrangements with this license.
To be precise, Wikinews is licensed as cc-by, not cc-by-sa. I think the share-alike clause was dropped so that the articles could be reused nore freely, allowing someone else to copyright derivative works but above all using them everywhere, without the need of licensing something else with the same license. I don't know which license is freer, it's mostly a matter on how you look at it. It is very unfortunate that licenses that are so similar like GFDL and cc-by-sa are mutually incompatible.
Cruccone
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
My point with the question was that the specific case of CC-BY-SA is a very nice analog for the GFDL in many respects. The Share-alike (SA) requirement of the license ensures that it is perpetually viral like the GFDL is, and the By-attribution (BY) aspect ensures that authors receive proper credit for their work. From a philosophical standpoint, this is almost identical to the GFDL. The benefit to using CC-BY-SA over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to the CC-BY-SA, why commons prefers that license for it's images, and why many wikibookians are interested in per-book cross-licensing arrangements with this license.
--Andrew Whitworth
I will note here that when the license issue for Wikinews came up, I voted for using the GFDL on Wikinews. I do understand many of the arguments against the GFDL on Wikinews, and many of them are very valid. I just liked the GFDL better, and felt that a common license among all Wikimedia projects was a better option. BTW, the issue of moving Wikinews content to Wikipedia has come up on Wikipedia, with some people pointing out (correctly IMHO) that the CC license used by Wikinews is completely incompatible with the GFDL on Wikipedia. There are some real problems in that regard having Wikinews under a completely different licensing regime but that was also dealt with when the license decision was made. I hope this isn't the primary motivation behind the harmonization effort on the GFDL right now.
I'll also note that every image I've ever added to Commons (minus a few exceptions for good reasons) has been under the terms of the GFDL as well.... even though other licenses exist and I've known about them. I hope that this "preference for CC images" is something that is expressed on Commons as something that many individuals are doing, and not something perceived as a mandatory requirement. I'm not here as a die-hard advocate of the GFDL, but as an individual I would encourage others to contribute media and other content under the GFDL as well.
I also don't think the whole text inclusion issue is something that is necessarily a major problem with the GFDL.... even if that is something I hope that will be fixed with the next version update of the GFDL. This is a very legitimate criticism of the GFDL, but not a fatal flaw as has sometimes been said.
-- Robert Horning
Robert Horning wrote:
I will note here that when the license issue for Wikinews came up, I voted for using the GFDL on Wikinews. I do understand many of the arguments against the GFDL on Wikinews, and many of them are very valid. I just liked the GFDL better, and felt that a common license among all Wikimedia projects was a better option.
BTW, the issue of moving Wikinews content to Wikipedia has come up on Wikipedia, with some people pointing out (correctly IMHO) that the CC license used by Wikinews is completely incompatible with the GFDL on Wikipedia.
Wikinews is Cc-by which is AFAIK compatible with GFDL, so there shouldn't be any problem moving content from Wikinews to Wikipedia (there would be from wikipedia to wikinews, though). Why is it "completely incompatible"? Mike, are there any issues with incorporing Cc-by content to a GFDL one? That would need quite content revision...
There are some real problems in that regard having Wikinews under a completely different licensing regime but that was also dealt with when the license decision was made. I hope this isn't the primary motivation behind the harmonization effort on the GFDL right now.
Do you prefer the previous "Public Domain license" wikinews had? I agree that having a different license is not something to encourage, but as the project scope required a different one, it's much better a Cc-by than PD.
I'll also note that every image I've ever added to Commons (minus a few exceptions for good reasons) has been under the terms of the GFDL as well.... even though other licenses exist and I've known about them. I hope that this "preference for CC images" is something that is expressed on Commons as something that many individuals are doing, and not something perceived as a mandatory requirement. I'm not here as a die-hard advocate of the GFDL, but as an individual I would encourage others to contribute media and other content under the GFDL as well.
Commons encourages dual licensing GFDL+Cc-by-sa
Platonides wrote:
Robert Horning wrote:
I will note here that when the license issue for Wikinews came up, I voted for using the GFDL on Wikinews. I do understand many of the arguments against the GFDL on Wikinews, and many of them are very valid. I just liked the GFDL better, and felt that a common license among all Wikimedia projects was a better option.
BTW, the issue of moving Wikinews content to Wikipedia has come up on Wikipedia, with some people pointing out (correctly IMHO) that the CC license used by Wikinews is completely incompatible with the GFDL on Wikipedia.
Wikinews is Cc-by which is AFAIK compatible with GFDL, so there shouldn't be any problem moving content from Wikinews to Wikipedia (there would be from wikipedia to wikinews, though). Why is it "completely incompatible"? Mike, are there any issues with incorporing Cc-by content to a GFDL one? That would need quite content revision...
Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift material verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source. Yet, some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be cited. (Eg Slashdot).
The only exception I've seen to this was when I interviewed [[w:Tony Benn]]. I was told as I'd put a recording of the interview on Commons it was a valid source. I am not aware if any of David Shankbone's interviews have been used as a source for Wikipedia, but you'll forgive me for having the impression that Wikipedia turns their nose up at our original research work.
Brian McNeil
Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift material verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source. Yet, some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be cited. (Eg Slashdot).
Slashdot is not some random online source, it is one of the largest and oldest sites of its type. Nevertheless, I would never cite it for anything other than information about Slashdot, since it only reports existing news stories and links to them, so you can just cite that story.
As for citing Wikinews - we're always telling people not to cite Wikipedia, why is Wikinews any more reliable? I know you have a system of "publishing" articles, which certainly helps, but is it enough?
The issue isn't so much the majority of our articles where we rewrite from multiple sources in much the same manner as Wikipedia. I don't expect that cited. Yet, Wikinews allows original research - meaning it has material that will be unavailable anywhere else. Forgive me for thinking it is a bit of a slap in the face to the project if hard work on this is labelled "not credible".
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 November 2007 20:50 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift
material
verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source.
Yet,
some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be cited. (Eg Slashdot).
Slashdot is not some random online source, it is one of the largest and oldest sites of its type. Nevertheless, I would never cite it for anything other than information about Slashdot, since it only reports existing news stories and links to them, so you can just cite that story.
As for citing Wikinews - we're always telling people not to cite Wikipedia, why is Wikinews any more reliable? I know you have a system of "publishing" articles, which certainly helps, but is it enough?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 23, 2007 12:27 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The benefit to using CC-BY-SA over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to the CC-BY-SA
I thought Wikinews uses CC-BY (without the SA).
David Gerard wrote:
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
Chapter and verse please?
- d.
Again, perhaps this is reaction to reaction here. I know Mike was talking originally talking about the discussions he was having with the Free Software Foundation, but he drifted into other areas and talked about how the "community" could have some sort of discussion or vote and simply change the license... and waxed philosophically about how switching licenses wasn't that big of a deal. I agree.... under the limited confines that it use the "or later version" clause of the GFDL. But if that is the case, why the huge community discussion about moving on to the next version of the GFDL? And in this case, how is this any different from when Wikipedia moved from GFDL v. 1.0 to v.1.2 that we are using now? Other than perhaps the switch to v 1.2 happened some time ago and those involved in that decision aren't involved now.
Andrew explicitly was mentioning that most people could care less about the actual license. I was suggesting that while "most people" may not care... I do.
-- Robert Horning
I suppose I have. What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
I think you are simply wrong there. I don't think anyone has suggested that. I don't think anyone disputes that that would be illegal.
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I suppose I have. What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
That was discussed... as a thought experiment, mainly to demonstrate what an awfully bad idea it was!
Quick recap of how this discussion came about -
* Side note about Citizendium * By the way, CZ is faffing over their license, they might pick -NC or something. * Noodling about CZ reusing WP content, or WP folding back in CZ derivative content * Hey, Wikipedia's nonprofit, couldn't we theoretically use NC material? * Yes, in theory, in practice no - the GFDL means we'd have to get all our content relicensed and we can't do that - we're "doomed by inertia to remain GFDL" * Technically, you know, we could sort of incrementally relicense to something indistinguishable from CC-BY-SA. * [everyone gets a bit lost]
The problem is that at each iteration the topic slipped a bit to the side, and it was rather easy to assume that at the last stage, someone was actually recommending declaring we were relicensing to CC-BY-NC or something equally unlikely!
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
With over 2000 edits on en.wikipedia alone, and 5000 on en.wikibooks.... over 4 years old in some cases... I think that would be quite the feat to accomplish from a technical viewpoint. There is hardly a part of en.wikibooks that I haven't touched at least on some level.
It does pose an interesting problem, certainly, but it's not as bad as it seems at first glance, especially if we're happy to leave the extant history dumps intact and apply the new license as of, say, revision two billion and higher...
First off, you need to quantify new content added rather than, say, edit wars; I believe there are existing algorithms to manage this. Filter out only those content-adding posts - maybe 50%, maybe 5% - and then check to see if that content still exists in the final version.
All that stage can be done mechanically, once you've coded it up, and done offline with a database dump. Then the human stage - you have a checklist of diffs and pages to look at to see if the content is material; if it is, you edit it out or rewrite it and mark the page as clear.
Still effort, but a lot less, especially if the author's motivated to help make sure we do it properly.
My contributions have been under the terms of the GFDL, and whatever the FSF says is the "or later version" I will respect in terms of fitting to the fine points of the GFDL. There is no way I can "take the license away" at this point, but I certainly am going to expect that the terms of the GFDL are followed on my contributions.
Bingo. And those terms include your handing to the FSF the power to vary the exact terms, remaining "similar in spirit to the present version", allowing alterations "to address new problems or concerns".
We're not talking about declaring that the GFDL is now replaced by Some Other License; we're talking about letting an existing process, where the license is slowly updated and polished and streamlined, trickle along with the aim of eventually getting to the point where the two major free-content 'viral' licenses are functionally the same. This doesn't have to happen tomorrow, or happen in one jump - it might be in 2015, with GFDL 1.7 and CC-BY-SA 6.2! - but it's perfectly above-board.
I mean, the fundamental principles of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA are the same. I own this; I let anyone republish it or develop it; they have to keep my name; they have to keep these conditions. Everything else is administrative details, and it's the administrative details (like how the viral aspect of the license should work, how attribution should be handled, how we deal with a plethora of authors, etc etc etc) that these "revision clauses" are meant to help us adjust.
Assuming they do stay similar in spirit, I really don't see a problem here, and I am a little lost as to why people are objecting so vigorously! I can't help but feel that there's a lot of arguments with shadows, people objecting to things which weren't actually proposed...
It does pose an interesting problem, certainly, but it's not as bad as it seems at first glance, especially if we're happy to leave the extant history dumps intact and apply the new license as of, say, revision two billion and higher...
If we do that, it becomes impossible to revert articles without being extremely careful. It doesn't seem practical to me...
Andrew Gray wrote:
First off, you need to quantify new content added rather than, say, edit wars; I believe there are existing algorithms to manage this. Filter out only those content-adding posts - maybe 50%, maybe 5% - and then check to see if that content still exists in the final version.
How can you efficiently do that? -We have article at revision A -Anon vandalises article -Anon adds content needed to be wikified. -User reverts to version A -User wikifies and rewrites anon's text.
A machine check would attribute the last addition solely to the user, while it's a derivative of the anonymous one, even if it's clearly stated on the summary.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org