Hi,
I was wondering if there is any way to "officially" free Wikipedia content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to release the data in the public domain.
Possible answers I have considered: - a message from each author in the talk page of the article (pros: easy to implement, wiki-based; cons: language barrier) - a message to OTRS (cons: afaik, OTRS messages to WMF are only considered "official" by the WMF itself)
Thanks, Strainu
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:15, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if there is any way to "officially" free Wikipedia content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to release the data in the public domain.
Possible answers I have considered: - a message from each author in the talk page of the article (pros: easy to implement, wiki-based; cons: language barrier)
That seems the most sensible way. It's not an OTRS issue.
On 26 August 2011 12:15, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if there is any way to "officially" free Wikipedia content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to release the data in the public domain.
Possible answers I have considered: - a message from each author in the talk page of the article (pros: easy to implement, wiki-based; cons: language barrier) - a message to OTRS (cons: afaik, OTRS messages to WMF are only considered "official" by the WMF itself)
I don't see why it should have anything to do with Wikipedia. You are dealing with the copyright holders directly. The fact that the same content happens to be used on Wikipedia under license is irrelevant.
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated with their legal identities.
Cheers, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
On 26 August 2011 12:37, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated with their legal identities.
Legal identity is a bit tangential here, I think; if we accept a pseudonymous account as good enough to release the content under CC licenses to begin with, then all you'd need for relicensing would be for those same accounts to agree to it.
On 26 August 2011 13:30, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Legal identity is a bit tangential here, I think; if we accept a pseudonymous account as good enough to release the content under CC licenses to begin with, then all you'd need for relicensing would be for those same accounts to agree to it.
Yes. What's the threat model here? That a reuser could be sued by an insane or malicious copyright holder. If the same entity that created the text releases the text, that would likely (modulo weirdness in court) be enough.
- d.
2011/8/26 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to release the data in the public domain.
As I said before, I am targeting only a very specific subset of pages, where contacting the authors won't be a problem.
2011/8/26 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
It might be easier to persuade whatever the organisation it is that insists on PD to broaden their stance and become compatible with us.
Actually, this is about handling the import of Wiki Loves Monuments data in OSM. Kolossos raised this on a OSM list: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-for-quot-Wiki-Loves-M...
OSM is currently trying to get away from CCBYSA. :) I'm inssiting on PD instead of ODBL because I find it easier to explain the concept to the other contributors that send them to read the text of yet another license.
2011/8/26 Fae faenwp@gmail.com:
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated with their legal identities.
That's precisely why I asked the question. The WMF have a procedure for that, but other entities don't (or I'm not aware of it).
Strainu
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org