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
On 5/12/06, Amgine amgine.saewyc@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The argument is that the right of the licensor to request removal of attribution is not covered by the GFDL, hence that the GFDL does not meet the minimums of CC-BY.
Erik
Amgine wrote:
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.
My argument was that the GFDL does not meet the minimums because it lacks an equivalent to CC-BY clause 4a...
Maybe we at Wikisource are confusing two concepts, GFDL-compatible and free content? Let me quote the emails that apparently trigerred Wikisource to change its copyright policy.
Kernigh (myself), 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006014.htm l
I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some
noncommercial or
no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to
upload
that source text to en.Wikisource.
In reply, Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006015.htm l
No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.
(It actually says "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikisource:Copyright for details)." Wikisource:Copyright had the clause which I believed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND contributions.)
Here, "is not compatible with the GFDL" and "is also not a free license" are listed together.
After this, there were some discussions in the Scriptorium. I was not active on Wikisource at the time, so I was not involved in en.wikisource's adoption of the GFDL-compatibility requirement.
Zhaladshar, 11 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#CC- NC_license.3F
Wikisource's policy is that we accept any work that we can legally display on the site. We are pretty much open to anything other than fair use documents.
Pathoschild, 11 February 2006, in reply
I asked Jimbo Wales a little while ago, and the general response was that we don't want noncommercial licenses on any of Wikimedia's
projects.
Phr, 11 February 2006, in reply
CC licenses designated "NC" (non-commercial) are incompatible with the GFDL and with the notion of Libre content ([5]) which is one of the
guiding
principles of the Wikimedia projects.
Again, both GFDL compatibility and free ("libre") content are mentioned together. Things started to lean toward GFDL compatibility...
Pathoschild, 12 February 2006, in reply
For content to be acceptable on Wikisource, it doesn't necessarily
have
to be relicensed under the GFDL. However, it must be compatible with
it;
ie, we must have the same rights under that license than we do under the GDFL.
jwales on IRC, 16 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#Non commercial_licenses_prohibited
Noncomercial-only license are basically the same thing as torturing
kittens.
Zhaladshar, 22 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright_policy
Please see the Foundation-I mailing list. This has actually come up
over
there. It seems that all submissions to WS must be either public
domain,
GFDL, or GFDL-compatible.
What had happened on foundation-l?
Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006026.htm l
It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
Jimmy Wales, 12 February 2006, in reply
Totally. That's been foundation policy forever.
Wait... if foundation-l is talking about "freely licensed text", then why is en.wikisource talking about "GFDL-compatible"?
Then en.wikisource adopted the requirement of GFDL-compatibility in their new copyright policy at 4 April 2006. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Pol l
---- I should mention that "GFDL compatibility" and "free content" are not the same. CC-BY is free content, and might or might not be compatible with the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is free content that is apparently not compatible witht he GFDL. An Invariant Section that is compatible with the GFDL is not free content.
We have a chance here. Multilingual/international Wikisource is discussing a new copyright policy. If they decide to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, then we might be able to convince en.wikisource to allow them too. However, I am not sure yet whether or not I want Wikisource to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses. http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_pages
GFDL compatibility or free content? Which one?
-- [[User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Dear Kernigh and others concerned,
Although the English Wikisource has explicitly prohibited noncommercial licenses, the copyright policy doesn't address any of the other Creative Commons options; share-alike (SA), attribution (BY), and nonderivative (ND) licenses are currently permitted. However, I'm not aware of any work on the English Wikisource currently hosted under a CC license.
Yours sincerely, Jesse Martin ([[en:user:Pathoschild]])
On 5/12/06, xkernigh@netscape.net xkernigh@netscape.net wrote:
Amgine wrote:
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.
My argument was that the GFDL does not meet the minimums because it lacks an equivalent to CC-BY clause 4a...
Maybe we at Wikisource are confusing two concepts, GFDL-compatible and free content? Let me quote the emails that apparently trigerred Wikisource to change its copyright policy.
Kernigh (myself), 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006014.htm l
I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some
noncommercial or
no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to
upload
that source text to en.Wikisource.
In reply, Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006015.htm l
No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.
(It actually says "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikisource:Copyright for details)." Wikisource:Copyright had the clause which I believed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND contributions.)
Here, "is not compatible with the GFDL" and "is also not a free license" are listed together.
After this, there were some discussions in the Scriptorium. I was not active on Wikisource at the time, so I was not involved in en.wikisource's adoption of the GFDL-compatibility requirement.
Zhaladshar, 11 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#CC- NC_license.3F
Wikisource's policy is that we accept any work that we can legally display on the site. We are pretty much open to anything other than fair use documents.
Pathoschild, 11 February 2006, in reply
I asked Jimbo Wales a little while ago, and the general response was that we don't want noncommercial licenses on any of Wikimedia's
projects.
Phr, 11 February 2006, in reply
CC licenses designated "NC" (non-commercial) are incompatible with the GFDL and with the notion of Libre content ([5]) which is one of the
guiding
principles of the Wikimedia projects.
Again, both GFDL compatibility and free ("libre") content are mentioned together. Things started to lean toward GFDL compatibility...
Pathoschild, 12 February 2006, in reply
For content to be acceptable on Wikisource, it doesn't necessarily
have
to be relicensed under the GFDL. However, it must be compatible with
it;
ie, we must have the same rights under that license than we do under the GDFL.
jwales on IRC, 16 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#Non commercial_licenses_prohibited
Noncomercial-only license are basically the same thing as torturing
kittens.
Zhaladshar, 22 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright_policy
Please see the Foundation-I mailing list. This has actually come up
over
there. It seems that all submissions to WS must be either public
domain,
GFDL, or GFDL-compatible.
What had happened on foundation-l?
Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006026.htm l
It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
Jimmy Wales, 12 February 2006, in reply
Totally. That's been foundation policy forever.
Wait... if foundation-l is talking about "freely licensed text", then why is en.wikisource talking about "GFDL-compatible"?
Then en.wikisource adopted the requirement of GFDL-compatibility in their new copyright policy at 4 April 2006. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Pol l
I should mention that "GFDL compatibility" and "free content" are not the same. CC-BY is free content, and might or might not be compatible with the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is free content that is apparently not compatible witht he GFDL. An Invariant Section that is compatible with the GFDL is not free content.
We have a chance here. Multilingual/international Wikisource is discussing a new copyright policy. If they decide to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, then we might be able to convince en.wikisource to allow them too. However, I am not sure yet whether or not I want Wikisource to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses. http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_pages
GFDL compatibility or free content? Which one?
-- [[User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@mail.wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Dear Kernigh and others concerned,
I prefer GFDL-compatibility to free content, since we distribute our content under the terms of the GFDL. Any alternative license on individual works should be compatible; otherwise, we guarantee rights to our redistributors that they do not have on those works.
Yours sincerely, Jesse Martin ([[user:Pathoschild]])
On 5/12/06, Jesse Martin pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kernigh and others concerned,
Although the English Wikisource has explicitly prohibited noncommercial licenses, the copyright policy doesn't address any of the other Creative Commons options; share-alike (SA), attribution (BY), and nonderivative (ND) licenses are currently permitted. However, I'm not aware of any work on the English Wikisource currently hosted under a CC license.
Yours sincerely, Jesse Martin ([[en:user:Pathoschild]])
On 5/12/06, xkernigh@netscape.net xkernigh@netscape.net wrote:
Amgine wrote:
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.
My argument was that the GFDL does not meet the minimums because it lacks an equivalent to CC-BY clause 4a...
Maybe we at Wikisource are confusing two concepts, GFDL-compatible and free content? Let me quote the emails that apparently trigerred Wikisource to change its copyright policy.
Kernigh (myself), 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006014.htm l
I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some
noncommercial or
no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to
upload
that source text to en.Wikisource.
In reply, Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006015.htm l
No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.
(It actually says "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikisource:Copyright for details)." Wikisource:Copyright had the clause which I believed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND contributions.)
Here, "is not compatible with the GFDL" and "is also not a free license" are listed together.
After this, there were some discussions in the Scriptorium. I was not active on Wikisource at the time, so I was not involved in en.wikisource's adoption of the GFDL-compatibility requirement.
Zhaladshar, 11 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#CC- NC_license.3F
Wikisource's policy is that we accept any work that we can legally display on the site. We are pretty much open to anything other than fair use documents.
Pathoschild, 11 February 2006, in reply
I asked Jimbo Wales a little while ago, and the general response was that we don't want noncommercial licenses on any of Wikimedia's
projects.
Phr, 11 February 2006, in reply
CC licenses designated "NC" (non-commercial) are incompatible with the GFDL and with the notion of Libre content ([5]) which is one of the
guiding
principles of the Wikimedia projects.
Again, both GFDL compatibility and free ("libre") content are mentioned together. Things started to lean toward GFDL compatibility...
Pathoschild, 12 February 2006, in reply
For content to be acceptable on Wikisource, it doesn't necessarily
have
to be relicensed under the GFDL. However, it must be compatible with
it;
ie, we must have the same rights under that license than we do under the GDFL.
jwales on IRC, 16 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#Non commercial_licenses_prohibited
Noncomercial-only license are basically the same thing as torturing
kittens.
Zhaladshar, 22 February 2006 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright_policy
Please see the Foundation-I mailing list. This has actually come up
over
there. It seems that all submissions to WS must be either public
domain,
GFDL, or GFDL-compatible.
What had happened on foundation-l?
Angela, 11 February 2006 http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006026.htm l
It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
Jimmy Wales, 12 February 2006, in reply
Totally. That's been foundation policy forever.
Wait... if foundation-l is talking about "freely licensed text", then why is en.wikisource talking about "GFDL-compatible"?
Then en.wikisource adopted the requirement of GFDL-compatibility in their new copyright policy at 4 April 2006. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Pol l
I should mention that "GFDL compatibility" and "free content" are not the same. CC-BY is free content, and might or might not be compatible with the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is free content that is apparently not compatible witht he GFDL. An Invariant Section that is compatible with the GFDL is not free content.
We have a chance here. Multilingual/international Wikisource is discussing a new copyright policy. If they decide to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, then we might be able to convince en.wikisource to allow them too. However, I am not sure yet whether or not I want Wikisource to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses. http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_pages
GFDL compatibility or free content? Which one?
-- [[User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@mail.wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org