xkernigh@netscape.net wrote:
** 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.
I don't think that the non-textual material is as much of a problem in Wikisource as it is elsewhere. If we are dealing with illustrations for a book the copyrights that apply to the text should normally also apply to the illustrations. Outside of these illustrations, the need is more limited for non-text material.
Even fair use has limited application on Wikisource because having whole works means that very few things are fair use.
Meanwhile, I would like to have the current en.wikisource policy of GFDL-compatibility enforced better.
What do you mean by "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.
These differences are inevitable as long as we allow dual or multiple licensing. I don't think that the average contributor should be put into a position of trying to make sense of the sometimes very subtle distinctions between the various licenses. Once material (other than public domain and fair use material) has been put into Wikisource the downstream user should feel free to treat it as GFDL material without regard to other licences that may have been stacked on. This would have the effect of extinguishing obligations under the other licences.
The attribution requirement should continue. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation accepts the role of a copyright agent that is willing to go to court as a plaintiff when material is improperly used (which does not appear likely) the attribution helps to maintain whatever rights of action the contributors may have.
Derivative works, notably translations should allow sources to be traced to their origins. In the case of a public domain original we need to recognize that translation gives rise to new copyrights.
Ec