Wikisource-l

wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org

4 participants
1318 discussions

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimania
by Dovi Jacobs 16 May '06

16 May '06

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. Dovi --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

2 1

CC-by 2.5 and GFDL compatibility
by Amgine 13 May '06

13 May '06

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. Amgine

4 4

Toward compatibility with the GNU FDL: delete all Creative Commons works?
by xkernigh＠netscape.net 12 May '06

12 May '06

** 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 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright 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 http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Respect_du_copyright 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 http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright 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 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html 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 under GPL. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) is an example; it is a free [1], 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. [1] 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: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-September/000329.html 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 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html 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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode 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 http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html 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 POLICY. -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com

3 3

Wikimania
by Birgitte SB 11 May '06

11 May '06

I was wondering which Wikisource editors were planning on attending Wikimania? I am. Birgitte SB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

5 5

computer code
by thomasV1＠gmx.de 03 May '06

03 May '06

ok, let me see if the ML helps... what shall we do with computer code? http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Source_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) ThomasV -- Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f�r 0,- Euro*! "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

6 7

Re: [Wikisource-l] [Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition
by Birgitte SB 01 May '06

01 May '06

--- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > --- Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wikimedia > > >The definition makes it easy to resolve the > question > >of which licenses > >to allow or disallow across projects. For example, > a > >Wikimedia-wide > >policy could be that: "All content in all projects > >must be free > >content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, > with > >the exception of > >works which are used under exemptions granted by > >national copyright > >laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. > These > >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. Birgitte SB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

WikiMLConvert
by Jesse Martin 21 Apr '06

21 Apr '06

I'm considering the creation of a public <format>-to-wikimarkup conversion script hosted on my server. This script would accept input from a user in various formats and output perfectly formatted wiki markup. The specific conversions to wikimarkup I've thought of, in the general order they'd be developed, are HTML, badly formatted wiki markup, Microsoft Word, and plaintext. The input form would probably be similar to that of <http://pathos.ca/listips> (another tool), albeit better documented and with more options. The script is intended to surpass other similar tools available in terms of: * user-friendliness and simplicity of use; * conformance to Wikisource conventions; * extended options for experienced users; * Much greater variety of accepted format on a single page; * open source code with full documentation; * open development (suggestions, examples, and code from editors all welcome). Everyone is welcome to help find badly-formatted texts on Wikisource and text from various other sources and formats. Users knowledgeable in regex and/or PHP are welcome to help with the coding. The documentation and discussion would probably be located at [[Wikisource:Tools and scripts/WikiMLConvert]]. Any comments or discussion are welcome. In case anyone wonders, "WikiMLConvert" is short for "Wiki Markup Language Conversion script".

2 1

Test
by Ryan Dabler 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

This is just a test to make sure that everything appears fine and to see if any settings need to be changed.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Wikisource-l