General Counsel Geoff Brigham recently published the following (at
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/31/terms-of-use/ ) which I am copying
here for your edification. :)
pb
___________________
Terms of use <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/31/terms-of-use/>
Posted by Geoff <http://blog.wikimedia.org/author/geoff/> on December 31st,
2011
I am happy to announce that we have completed the most collaborative,
interactive drafting of a proposed terms of
use<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use> for
any major website. For more than 120 days, the Wikimedia community
reviewed, drafted, and redrafted with more than 200 edits modifying the
original proposal. While accumulating 19,000 page views, community members
offered comments, edits, and rewrites. Complete or partial translations
appeared in 20+ languages. With over 4500 lines of text and as many words
as Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath,” discussion helped ensure a
thoughtful process.
These proposed terms of use are intended to replace our present
version<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>se>.
It is not commonly known that our present terms are nothing more than a
licensing agreement, not traditional terms of use. The new proposed terms
of use represent a step forward and a more comprehensive view of the
Wikimedia projects. Among other things, they provide for:
- *Better understanding:* The proposed agreement includes an
easy-to-read template summary to help facilitate understanding of the terms.
- *Stronger security:* The proposed agreement prohibits a number of
actions – like installing malware – that could compromise our systems. We
thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though
most of these restrictions will not be surprising or represent any real
change in practice.
- *Clearer roles:* We have heard a number of community members asking
for guidance, so we set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the
community, including editors and contributors. The proposed agreement also
seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.
- *More community feedback:* With this version, and with each major
revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved. So the proposed
agreement gives users at least a 30-day comment period before a major
revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception
for urgent legal and administrative changes.
- *Clearer free licensing:* We feel our present agreement is somewhat
confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement
attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors (without
changing existing practices).
- *More tools against harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and
other long-term issues:* The proposed agreement would make clear that
such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement raises the
possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that
we have heard expressed from a number of community members. While the
global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by
community policy.
- *Better legal protection:* The proposed agreement incorporates legal
sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as
better explanation of our hosting status as well as disclaimers and
limitations on liability for the Foundation.
If you’re interested in more detailed reasons why we are proposing updated
terms of use, you can find a thorough discussion
here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#Reasons_for_the_Ne…se>.
Suffice it to say, we are consistent with other like-minded organizations,
which have incorporated similar agreements, including Internet
Archives<http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php>
, Creative Commons <https://creativecommons.org/terms>, Mozilla
Firefox<http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal.html>
, Open Source Initiative <http://www.opensource.org/ToS>,
Reddit<http://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement>
, Project
Gutenberg<http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:The_Project_Gutenberg_…
, Linux Foundation <https://www.linux.com/terms>,
StackExchange<http://stackexchange.com/legal>
, WikiSpaces <http://www.wikispaces.com/terms>, and
WordPress.com<http://en.wordpress.com/tos/>
.
Specifically, in its more than 320 printed pages of discussions, the
community raised, discussed, and resolved more than 120 issues. There were
many substantive and editorial changes that greatly improved the document.
Much language was deleted or tightened at community request. As part of
this process, the community addressed a number of interesting topics, such
as:
- Whether we should emphasize that the community (not WMF) is primarily
responsible for enforcing policy: We agreed to underscore this primary
responsibility of the community to avoid any confusion.
- Whether we should include an indemnification clause to the benefit of
WMF: We chose to delete it in light of community concerns.
- Whether we should adopt a “human-readable” version to facilitate
understanding: We agreed to incorporate such a summary.
- Whether we should expressly prohibit linking to certain sites: We
chose not to, deleting earlier language unacceptable to the community.
- Whether we should require civility and politeness: With varying
views, we decided to “encourage” it.
- Whether the WMF should provide resources to support forks: We chose
not to address this now, though we agreed to highlight the discussion to
the Board for its consideration.
- Whether we should emphasize the independent roles of chapters: We
chose to do so.
- Whether we should increase the liability limitation for WMF from $100
to $1000: We answered affirmatively.
- Whether we should provide for additional comment time after the
posting of translations in three key languages: We said “yes” to address
international community concerns.
From a process standpoint, the legal department will
circulate the proposed
terms of use within the Wikimedia Foundation internally, and
then the
department anticipates recommending their adoption to the Board. We expect
the Board will take some time to review before reaching a final decision.
Needless to say, this project would have been impossible without the hard
work and expertise of our community. Through their tireless effort, the
community mentored important and deep discussions on critical subjects for
Wikimedia. The process forced us to think about issues that we had never
addressed directly. In short, the value of collaboration quickly became
obvious. Its magic created a document many times better than the original.
Geoff Brigham, Wikimedia Foundation