Sorry for writing only in Portuguese. I'm so strongly wikitired to try to
use my en-1 level to full translate this to English.
No multilingual wikisource, vi uma discussão longa e confusa com propostas
para um novo logotipo para o Wikisource. No entanto, hoje, após me logar na
edição em língua portuguesa do projeto, me deparo com um novo logotipo.
Trata-se apenas do logo antigo, mas, como um desenho e de formato
arredondado. Onde foi votado pela permanência de tal logo? Em lugar algum.
Permitam-me prosseguir com minhas perguntas. O que esse logotipo "novo" tem
a ver com a proposta do projeto? A idéia para isso ser usado em um logotipo
era válida apenas enquanto se chamava Project Sourceberg. Uma esfera com um
iceberg dentro não está nada ligada à idéia de um acervo em GFDL de textos
importantes para a cultura humana. Mas, mesmo assim, adotou-se o novo
logotipo, para todos os idiomas, em uma discussão que surge do nada
ignorando-se discussões anteriormente feitas.
Me desculpem, mas, me sinto extremamente desconfortável com esse tipo de
atitude. O projeto não é feito apenas por alguns. Deveria ter ocorrido uma
votação, para que todos os que fazem o projeto pudessem ter se manifestado.
Isso me soa como algo tirânico e ditatorial, infelizmente.
Desculpem-me pelo desabafo em língua portuguesa.
Luiz Augusto, [[meta:User:555]], sysop in ptwikipedia and sysop-bureaucrat
I am also much too far away and work this time of year. Maybe someday in the future...
Ec, it is good to see you here. I mean it, and I hope you'll stay with Wikisource.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
The CC-by 2.5 license allows content which is created under it to be
relicensed under another free license which meets its minimums.
The GFDL meets these minimums, but does not allow content created under
it to be relicensed.
What this means is that the CC-by 2.5 content may be incorporated into a
GFDL item. GFDL content may *not* be incorporated into a CC-by 2.5 item.
That's the "one-way compatible" situation.
Sorry if this was not clear.
** Warning: this email has not been checked for accuracy. I am also
NOT an expert in copyright law.
I would like all Wikisource subdomains to adopt a common copyright
policy, considering which licenses are allowed and disallowed.
Currently it seems that some licenses are valid on some subdomains
but not others.
On en.wikisource, the current copyright policy
requires all content to be compatible with the GNU Free
Documentation License. However, maybe some other language
subdomains do not have this policy?
I read from the fr.wikisource copyright policy
that "La plupart des textes de Wikisource sont du domaine public;
quelques uns peuvent être sous GFDL." (My translation: "The majority
of Wikisource texts are public domain; some are under GFDL.")
However, in the multilingual (oldwikisource) policy
in section "Using copyrighted non-textual work from others" it allows
any kind of license. Considering that Wikisource should be a "free
library", I believe that non-free licenses should be disallowed.
Meanwhile, I would like to have the current en.wikisource policy
of GFDL-compatibility enforced better.
Understand what this means.
The FSF maintains a list of free software licenses at
and while the GNU General Public License (GPL) is a free software
license, some other free software licenses are compatible with the
GPL, but some are not.
Similarily, some free content licenses are compatible with the
GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), but some are not. This
is where the en.wikisource policy could be clarified: it prohibits
noncommercial licenses, but it does not mention free licenses
that allow commercial use but are incompatible with the GFDL.
However, it does require GFDL-compatibility, thus de jure
en.wikisource already prohibits those incompatible free licenses.
>From what I know, the basic test for GFDL-compatibility is this: can
someone combine content under license X and license GFDL and
release the combination under GFDL? If yes, X is GFDL-compatible;
if no, X is not GFDL-compatible.
This is analogous to how FSF says that GNU GPL compatibility
"means you can combine a module which was released under that
license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program."
Because GNU GPL is copyleft, that larger program would be
The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) is an
example; it is a free , copyleft license. Now GFDL is also copyleft.
Because of copyleft, if I modify the work I must use the same license
for my modifications. If I combine CC-BY-SA and GFDL work, I must
release the combo under CC-BY-SA and GFDL simultaneously.
However, each license contradicts the others because of technicalities;
for example GFDL grants the right to add an Invariant Section, but
CC-BY-SA prohibits that. So CC-BY-SA is not GFDL-compatible, and
CC-BY-SA IS AGAINST EN.WIKISOURCE POLICY.
 CC licenses are not Debian-free (they fail Debian Free Software
Guidelines), see http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
The Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) is a more difficult
example. CC-BY is not copyleft. So when I combine CC-BY and
GFDL works, it is okay if GFDL has some extra rules (like copyleft)
that are not in CC-BY. Thus I have read that CC-BY is one-way
compatible with GFDL. For example, Wikinews picked CC-BY:
states that "The winner is CC-By 2.5, with the attribution to the Wiki.
The license is one-way-compatible with the GFDL."
That email seems wrong to me; compare what FSF says on their list
about CC-BY license: "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License:
This is a non-copyleft free license for artistic works and entertainment
works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it
is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."
Maybe CC-BY 2.0 is incompatible, but CC-BY 2.5 is compatible?
Actually, my own reading of CC-BY 2.5 suggests that CC-BY 2.5
is incompatible. License is at
and in clause 4a: "If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice
from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove
from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b),
as requested." Clause 4b is the attribution requirement.
In short, an author can use clause 4a to change the requirement
from attribution to nonattribution. This would apply for example
to Wikisource translations of CC-BY works.
But the GFDL requires attribution, and has no equivalent to
CC-BY clause 4a. License it at
and in GFDL section 4, modifications are allowed if "you
release the Modified Version under precisely this License".
Its copyleft, and CC-BY clause 4a contradicts the GFDL.
Thus, (on a minor technicality!) the CC-BY is not
GFDL-compatible, and CC-BY IS AGAINST EN.WIKISOURCE
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
I was wondering which Wikisource editors were planning
on attending Wikimania?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
ok, let me see if the ML helps...
what shall we do with computer code?
There is still a deletion request on ws.org,
it has been there for a long time, and I am not
sure what to do...
As a programmer, my opinion is that source code on
wikisource is useless. Wikisourceis not a repository
for source code, despite its confusing name.
I therefore support deletion.
the only exception would for programs whose interest
goes beyond programming (eg quines, or pieces of
code that have a historical value)
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f�r 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
--- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikimedia
> >The definition makes it easy to resolve the
> >of which licenses
> >to allow or disallow across projects. For example,
> >policy could be that: "All content in all projects
> >must be free
> >content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0,
> >the exception of
> >works which are used under exemptions granted by
> >national copyright
> >laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States.
> >exemptions are
> >defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
I would like to appeal to everyone to re-read the
above paragraph. If Wikimedia wants to take the high
road and stick to the strictest principles regarding
"free content", the exception allowing fair use must
be removed from that statement. If Wikimedia wishes
to be more flexible, then each project should be
allowed to draft it's own exceptions. The English
Wikisource does not allow anything under fair use at
all, the English Wikipedia allows anything legally
allowed in regards to US fair use. Such material is
much less free than the any non-derivatives existing
on enWS. Also fair use is pervasive thoughout enWP,
where any ND at enWS could be clearly marked and
compartmentalized. This is how I feel on the matter
and I will strongly oppose policy being enacted with
wording given above.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around