Hi!
I thought someone else with more legal knowledge would start a discussion about this. But nothing happened, so I'll do it:
Whould it be possible to dual licence the Wikipedia articles with one of the new creative commons licences? Preferably this one: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0 (Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0)
It's in the spirit of the GNU FDL (copyleft), but much simpler, and I think the creative commons licences will become very important sooner or later. We should make it as easy as possible for people to use our work, as long as their's is also open content.
I guess we might be able to incorporate works under the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 licence, but not the other way round. But IANAL. I guess the first paid employee of the Wikipedia foundation has to be a copyright lawyer. Is there a site somewhere that explains which free/open licences are compatible with each other?
Of course it's impossible to ask everyone who has contributed to wikipedia if it's okay to dual licence their work (I'm astonished that it worked for Mozilla). But we might apply the creative commons licence to all new articles, and to articles which have been heavily edited or completely rewritten.
Kurt
Of course it's impossible to ask everyone who has contributed to wikipedia if it's okay to dual licence their work (I'm astonished that it worked for Mozilla). But we might apply the creative commons licence to all new articles, and to articles which have been heavily edited or completely rewritten.
The problems: 1) We have to determine when an article has been sufficiently rewritten to relicense it. This can be very tricky. 2) We will not be able to import FDL content as new articles unless we specifically except it from the CC license. 3) We will not be able to import FDL content into dual licensed articles unless we revoke the CC license. 4) Our open content concept is already confusing. I can only imagine how a new visitor must feel when he reads about "dual licensing".
Regarding 2) & 3), this is the case because we cannot offer an additional choice of license for works which are not our own.
Because this will create chaos with both new and existing articles, I am against it. It is much more practical to convince someone who wants to use Wikipedia material to use the FDL than for us to effectively switch to another license. In those cases where an author absolutely wants to use CC-SA because it doesn't have the letters "GNU" before its name, they can still contact the individual authors of an article through its history, I'm sure most of them will be cooperative, if they can be contacted.
I really do like the Creative Commons idea, but I would have much preferred it if they had made use of existing licenses.
Regards,
Erik
I have no opposition, in principle, to just about any sort of license, so long as it preserves what I think are the essential features of our license, namely: that no one can make our work proprietary (closed). I would not be happy with a BSD-style license, for example.
But I do think that the practical obstacles to dual-licensing are pretty high.
Kurt, can you sum up for us what advantage the license you linked would have over the GNU FDL?
--Jimbo
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I have no opposition, in principle, to just about any sort of license, so long as it preserves what I think are the essential features of our license, namely: that no one can make our work proprietary (closed). I would not be happy with a BSD-style license, for example.
But I do think that the practical obstacles to dual-licensing are pretty high.
The largest practical obstacle being that de GNU/FDL republication forbids under another or no license, whether it's stricter, less strict, or even effectively the same.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
The largest practical obstacle being that de GNU/FDL republication forbids under another or no license, whether it's stricter, less strict, or even effectively the same.
Right. At very best, the dual-licensing scheme could only be applied to *new* articles, or articles that contain *no* GNU/FDL content, which is pretty hard to determine at this point. I'm skeptical as to whether this is possible.
I guess if we wanted to do something like this, we'd have to find a license that solves some really important problem. I don't know what the Creative Commons license here is supposed to have as an advantage.
--Jimbo
Hi Jimbo!
I guess if we wanted to do something like this, we'd have to find a license that solves some really important problem. I don't know what the Creative Commons license here is supposed to have as an advantage.
The advantage would be that people using the Attribution-ShareAlike licence whould be able to use our works. I'm pretty sure the creative commons licences will be widely used, because it's easy to understand how they work. The modular construction system is a good idea and it's representation by logos is so, too.
But I can see that dual licensing whould complicate things for contributors, and it might not be worth the trouble. I just wanted to bring this to our attention, because if we wanted to dual licence our articles we'd better do it sooner than later.
Kurt
You can start a "grass-roots" dual licensing campaign; there is no need for a project-wide policy change. Simply convince Wikipedians to release their contributions under a second license and to put a statement to that effect on their user page.
In that case, I would argue for straight public domain as the second "license". It's the only way to cut through the maze of slightly incompatible free/open/creative commons licenses that is bound to become almost as stifling as standard proprietary copyrights. Throw fair-use materials in the mix and it becomes an utter mess to sort out who can use what.
Your GFDL contributions will fall into the public domain 70 years after your death anyway. Why wait? Why not release them right now? I found the idea quite liberating, actually.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Your GFDL contributions will fall into the public domain 70 years after your death anyway. Why wait? Why not release them right now? I found the idea quite liberating, actually.
The FDL idea is, of course, more anti-copyright than the public domain idea, because it is intended to convince others to release their content openly. It turns copyright against itself - the only freedom it takes away is the freedom to exert control over content. The FDL has various problems (GNU is primarily about software, and hasn't really spent much work on developing decent general open content licenses), and other licenses aren't established enough.
The copyleft concept only works well with a standardized license. Neither GNU nor Creative Commons will give that to us. I do believe that Wikipedia's use of the FDL will give it a big boost, and that we can increasingly use that as an argument that the FDL *is* the standard share- alike license. Isn't that amazing - we're already so big that we can argue that something we do is right because we do it. Almost like Microsoft ;-)
Regards,
Erik
It isn't unreasonable to think, that with no institutional effort on our part, the FDL and the Creative Commons, and public domain will flow together. Individual contributors may pursue it (and perhaps reunite with Isis) but for most of us, these discussions are academic. We claim no copyright, don't want any, wouldn't accept it, and are occasionally bemused by trying to figure out how we ended up with one after so much effort not to have one.
I have never been involved in a discussion of the GFDL in Wikipedia that didn't feel like a troll to me. See [[Talk:Oregon City, Oregon]] and [[Talk:Hitler has only got one ball]].
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: 08 Feb 2003 01:48:00 +0100 | |> Your GFDL contributions will fall into the public domain 70 years after |> your death anyway. Why wait? Why not release them right now? I found |> the idea quite liberating, actually. | |The FDL idea is, of course, more anti-copyright than the public domain |idea, because it is intended to convince others to release their content |openly. It turns copyright against itself - the only freedom it takes away |is the freedom to exert control over content. The FDL has various problems |(GNU is primarily about software, and hasn't really spent much work on |developing decent general open content licenses), and other licenses |aren't established enough. | |The copyleft concept only works well with a standardized license. Neither |GNU nor Creative Commons will give that to us. I do believe that |Wikipedia's use of the FDL will give it a big boost, and that we can |increasingly use that as an argument that the FDL *is* the standard share- |alike license. Isn't that amazing - we're already so big that we can argue |that something we do is right because we do it. Almost like Microsoft ;-) | |Regards, | |Erik |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
Le 08 Feb 2003 01:48:00 +0100, inspiré erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) écrivait la plume alerte :
Your GFDL contributions will fall into the public domain 70 years after your death anyway. Why wait? Why not release them right now? I found the idea quite liberating, actually.
There is a re-appropriation of public domain actually : - adobe use a patented protected media to prevent the copy of public domain books from gutenberg project, - Disney almost considers it created the sleeping beauty (poor Grim's brother) and else. - classical music ...
The FDL idea is, of course, more anti-copyright than the public domain
idea, because it is intended to convince others to release their content openly. It turns copyright against itself - the only freedom it takes away is the freedom to exert control over content. The FDL has various problems (GNU is primarily about software, and hasn't really spent much work on developing decent general open content licenses), and other licenses aren't established enough.
It does not turn copyright agaisnt itself. IP right relyes on 2 mechanism : - "author's right" (Bern's Convention) which relies on respecting the author's will and for which trial are complex since you have to bring a *legal* proof you were the first to create, and it is not enough in most cases. - "copyright" (Geneve's convention) based on the registration of the creation by the authors to an authority.
Copyleft might be copyrighted, but the copylefted creation are not.
[...]
Regards,
Friendly yours,
Erik
Jul It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet
I suggest include the box :
Go to article
For example, if you know "SVG" article exists, the server will transfer you to www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG, only writting SVG in the box and clicking the button.
If you go to search you recieve a lot of articles with SVG and it´s less direct solution.
About search if I try to search "svg" ( no capital letters ) the server is going to answer : no articles. And there is an article about "SVG" ( capital letters ).
How solve this problem ??.
Regards.
That's what the "Go" button is for. Why am I still here? Zoe "Pedro M.V." macv@interlap.com.ar wrote:I suggest include the box :
Go to article
For example, if you know "SVG" article exists, the server will transfer you to www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG, only writting SVG in the box and clicking the button.
If you go to search you recieve a lot of articles with SVG and it�s less direct solution.
About search if I try to search "svg" ( no capital letters ) the server is going to answer : no articles. And there is an article about "SVG" ( capital letters ).
How solve this problem ??.
Regards.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
----- Original Message ----- From: Zoe To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Navigation and search tools
That's what the "Go" button is for.
When the Go features has not been temporally disabled
Sorry! This feature has been temporarily disabled during peak access hours for performance reasons; come back between 02:00 and 14:00 UTC and try again.
Upto them, work missed.
Why am I still here?
To write encyclopedia I think :D
Regards.
The Cologne Blue interface has only "Find", no "Search", no "Go".
Zoe, if you see this, don't jump.
O88 Tom P.
|From: Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:29:06 -0800 (PST) | |--0-178518694-1044692946=:44805 |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii | | |That's what the "Go" button is for. |Why am I still here? |Zoe | "Pedro M.V." macv@interlap.com.ar wrote:I suggest include the box : | |Go to article | |For example, if you know "SVG" article exists, the server will transfer you to www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG, only writting SVG in the box and clicking the button. | |If you go to search you recieve a lot of articles with SVG and it�s less direct solution. | |About search if I try to search "svg" ( no capital letters ) the server is going to answer : no articles. And there is an article about "SVG" ( capital letters ). | |How solve this problem ??. | |Regards. | | |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
Tom Parmenter wrote:
Zoe, if you see this, don't jump.
After one has hung around for a while one develops an image of the different characters the hang around the pot-bellied stove at Wikepedia. Very few (Mav, Isis (and TMC?!) being notable exceptions) have posted their picture on their user pages. One can only imagine what the others really look like, and I'm afraid that a lot of illusions would be shattered if they in fact did post those pictures. If I imagine Tom as a Walter Matthau Grumpy Old Man lookalike sitting on a broad verandah in rural Georgia (USA) with his computer perched on top of the washing machine (meaning that he can only join us on Wikipedia when his wife is not doing the laundry), I am entitled to my illusions. Similarly, I can imagine our "Uncle" Ed as "Mister" Ed viewed from the wrong end, and be confident that his sense of humour will overcome in the context of some often divisive debates.
Any experienced duplicate bridge players among us may know of Victor Mollo's book "Bridge in the Menagerie" provided some very readable descriptions of the characters that are often found at a bridge club. That microcosm of personalities could easily be transferred to Wikipedia.
Zoe is not exempt from caricature. Sticking to the movie theme (a subject area where Zoe's contributions have been outstanding) leads me to the Sandy Dennis character in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". She is sometimes quick to see offense where none is intended, and would do well not to accept the invitation to go for drinks with George and Martha. We don't all have the thick skin that is needed when dealing with offensive people. A passion for seeing things put right is no protection in the heat of battle; it is more often a vulnerability.
My suggestion to Zoe. Stay. Do what you do well. Let others do the dirty work. Wandering away from what you do well can leave you suffering from a bad case of "illegitmis carborundum".
Eclecticology
Tom-
The Cologne Blue interface has only "Find", no "Search", no "Go".
blame Brion ;-). He didn't want that button in the first place, and I'm certainly not going to try to convince him to have it in his beloved Cologne Blue skin.
Note that the Go button has been recently improved to go do the nearest match if it doesn't find a direct hit.
Regards,
Erik
On sab, 2003-02-08 at 12:37, Erik Moeller wrote:
Tom-
The Cologne Blue interface has only "Find", no "Search", no "Go".
blame Brion ;-). He didn't want that button in the first place, and I'm certainly not going to try to convince him to have it in his beloved Cologne Blue skin.
Heh. ;) If it can get worked in _cleanly and clearly_, I don't mind. The functionality is useful; I just think it's poorly placed and badly labeled.
Cologne Blue is still in desperate need of work, but my todo list is waaay too long and I haven't got to it yet. Others are welcome to pitch in...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Cologne Blue is still in desperate need of work, but my todo list is waaay too long and I haven't got to it yet. Others are welcome to pitch in...
If someone converts the PHP to using HTML templates, I'll do the HTML & CSS work on Cologne blue & the other skins too :-)
So, I have a choice of a handsome interface or a "Go" button? I don't like either of the other skins, but I missed the "Go" button without even knowing everybody else had one.
still grumpy after all these years,
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: 08 Feb 2003 21:37:00 +0100 | |Tom- |> The Cologne Blue interface has only "Find", no "Search", no "Go". | |blame Brion ;-). He didn't want that button in the first place, and I'm |certainly not going to try to convince him to have it in his beloved |Cologne Blue skin. | |Note that the Go button has been recently improved to go do the nearest |match if it doesn't find a direct hit. | |Regards, | |Erik |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
I suggest the wikimaps be in SVG ( www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG ) open W3C Standar.
The text contained in a SVG graphic can be edited, selected, indexed by search machines ( wikipedia search machine) and so on.
So very usefull for wikipedians.
Regards.
On sab, 2003-02-08 at 01:05, Pedro M.V. wrote:
I suggest the wikimaps be in SVG ( www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG ) open W3C Standar.
The text contained in a SVG graphic can be edited, selected, indexed by search machines ( wikipedia search machine) and so on.
So very usefull for wikipedians.
Please see http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG_image_support
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I was translating a big article fron english wipedia to spanish wipedia.
I stored the changes (the article was very long, I remark ) using preview.
After some time writting, I tried to save the changes ( indicating " Manual translations ends here; it´s going to be continued") when appeared a DNS error.
I tried to go backwards and the broswer said me " Page has been expired".
So , I missed all the work.
For prevent it, I suggest create a third button named " Temporally save" or similar, to store the articles created by the author, without publish them.
So, later, after improving it, the author can publish it in the wikipedia.
Regards.
Pedro M.V. wrote:
I was translating a big article fron english wipedia to spanish wipedia.
I stored the changes (the article was very long, I remark ) using preview.
After some time writting, I tried to save the changes ( indicating " Manual translations ends here; it´s going to be continued") when appeared a DNS error.
I tried to go backwards and the broswer said me " Page has been expired".
So , I missed all the work.
For prevent it, I suggest create a third button named " Temporally save" or similar, to store the articles created by the author, without publish them.
So, later, after improving it, the author can publish it in the wikipedia.
I'm familiar with that problem, and it can be very annoying in every language, especially if your edits have been long or complicated. My experience has been that when I get such a message, it is still there later if I use the reload button, but it is destroyed completely if I use the back button. Pedro's idea is a constructive one but the buttons are part of one's browser and not of Wikipedia.
Something similar could happen if any save or preview attempt were first put into a person's cache, and if the save or preview were successful it could then be deleted.
Alternatively, flowing from the idea of a read only mirror site that keeps the data available while the main computer is down, the second computer could also have a queue file that saves attempted changes. In a boilerplate statement6 it would notify the contributor that "because of circumstances above and beyond our control.....", and notify him that his contributions have been saved in a temporary file. When the system comes back up it would integrate the edits in the queue. As long as the emergency prevails it would not permit users to start any new edits.
Eclecticology
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Temporally save
Pedro M.V. wrote:
I'm familiar with that problem, and it can be very annoying in every
language, especially if your edits have been long or complicated. My experience has been that when I get such a message, it is still there later if I use the reload button, but it is destroyed completely if I use the back button. Pedro's idea is a constructive one but the buttons are part of one's browser and not of Wikipedia.
Finally, somebody understand my problem. THANK you a lot ;)
I am sure in the future W3C will include some wikipedia tags and uses in the web standards, like X-forms or similar ( and browser will have to include it to be standard).
Regards ;)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org