I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but here I go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since that is now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything newer than Sept 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I realize we don't "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most people, but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding). We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
-- - bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns + images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but here I go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since that is now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything newer than Sept 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I realize we don't "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most people, but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of Wikinews content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding). We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns + images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but here I go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since that is now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything newer than Sept 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I realize we don't "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most people, but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of Wikinews content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.combawolff%2Bwn@gmail.com> wrote:
From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding). We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns + images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.Is my assumption correct or false?It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.SVTCobra----- Original Message -----From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 amSubject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?To: Wikinews mailing list > Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that > the old> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.> > -Jon> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson > wrote:> > > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of > Wikinews> content ;-)> >> > -ilya> >> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff > >> wrote:> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from > gfdl to> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different > than cc-by> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my > understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to > arbitrary change license (we> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything > is blah> > > license, but thats messy).> > >> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people > feel that> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution > is a> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would> > > disallow.> > >> > > --> > > - bawolff> > >> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently > have only> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help > ns +> > > images)> > >> > >> > >> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis > wrote:> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing > licenses... but> > here I> > >> go.> > >>> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-> BY (since> > that is> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything > newer than> > Sept> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is > GFDL)... why> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I > realize we> > don't> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest > to most> > people,> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?> > >>> > >> -Jon> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]> > >>> > >> --> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list> > >> Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l%3E > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________> > > Wikinews-l mailing list> > > Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l%3E > >> >> > _______________________________________________> > Wikinews-l mailing list> > Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l%3E >> > > > -- > This is a test of the emergency sig system.> > Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So > if you're> coming to get me, better send a nuke.> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.>
There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.
First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.
Then they have to move to the CC license.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt@optonline.net Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.
SVTCobra
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change? To: Wikinews mailing list
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
Wikinews> content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
wrote: From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything
is blah
license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
ns +
images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
GFDL)... why
can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke. Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.orgwrote:
There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.
First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.
Then they have to move to the CC license.
-----Original Message----- *From:* wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * wikinewssvt@optonline.net *Sent:* 02 March 2009 16:39 *To:* Wikinews mailing list *Subject:* Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.
*SVT**Cobra*
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change? To: Wikinews mailing list
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
Wikinews> content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
wrote: From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything
is blah
license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
ns +
images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
GFDL)... why
can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke. Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
It is not really practical for us to change licenses on articles. This would - per article - require agreement from all contributors.
For Wikinews to change license it would be like last time, set a cutoff date and everything after that uses the new license.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mannion Sent: 02 March 2009 19:08 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.
First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.
Then they have to move to the CC license.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt@optonline.net Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.
SVTCobra
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change? To: Wikinews mailing list
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
Wikinews> content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
wrote: From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything
is blah
license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
ns +
images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
GFDL)... why
can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke. Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
We should just install click wrap them "By creating a wikinews account, you agree to let us change the license for the articles at any point in time".
In all seriousness though. Is there anything new in CC 3.0 that would be beneficial for us to "upgrade"?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:55, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.orgwrote:
It is not really practical for us to change licenses on articles. This would – per article – require agreement from all contributors.
For Wikinews to change license it would be like last time, set a cutoff date and everything after that uses the new license.
-----Original Message----- *From:* wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Mannion *Sent:* 02 March 2009 19:08 *To:* Wikinews mailing list *Subject:* Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.
First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.
Then they have to move to the CC license.
-----Original Message----- *From:* wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * wikinewssvt@optonline.net *Sent:* 02 March 2009 16:39 *To:* Wikinews mailing list *Subject:* Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.
*SVT**Cobra*
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change? To: Wikinews mailing list
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
Wikinews> content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
wrote: From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything
is blah
license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
ns +
images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
GFDL)... why
can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke. Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
2009/3/2 wikinewssvt@optonline.net:
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become CC-BY-SA.
Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.
Erik
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/3/2 wikinewssvt@optonline.net:
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become CC-BY-SA.
Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.
Erik is right.
The only other thing to consider would be fair use (I see "passages" above, which could mean very brief). But this would be no change from the FDL. I see that http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use is all about images.
Mike
Based on Erik and Mike's responses I would say we need to look at some tweaking to the EDP/Fair Use guidelines.
I'd be happy to be able to lift a sentence or three from a WP article, but how we word a generic fair-use claim for doing something like that may be tricky.
There have recently, and I suspect going right back to the beginning of the project, cases where people have tried to cut and paste bits from source articles, we can't open the door to that. It may be that we need provision for fair use quoting from free sources like Wikipedia, but absolutely not for news sources where we could be considered one of their competitors.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer Sent: 02 March 2009 20:41 To: Erik Moeller Cc: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/3/2 wikinewssvt@optonline.net:
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be
able
to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become CC-BY-SA.
Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.
Erik is right.
The only other thing to consider would be fair use (I see "passages" above, which could mean very brief). But this would be no change from the FDL. I see that http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use is all about images.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org