** 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 ĂȘtre 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.
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