All,
after some internal discussion with the licensing update committee, I'm proposing the following final site terms to be implemented on all Wikimedia projects that currently use GFDL as their primary content license, as well as the relevant multimedia templates:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Please note that these aren't quite yet ready for translation yet (hence labeled draft). Please provide feedback here or on the talk page, ideally by Thursday night UTC so we can move the process forward on Friday.
In terms of implementing these changes, I suggest the following:
1) That the relevant site configuration variables are updated on June 15; 2) That, additionally, a central "Terms of use" page is created on wikimediafoundation.org to house the "terms of use" above, which can be replaced with a localized version whenever one is created; 3) That the relevant MediaWiki-messages are force-updated on all projects to the English version above, or any translations already created by June 15; 4) That the revised MediaWiki-messages are also translated through translatewiki.net and hence additional translations will be rolled out through normal i18n upgrades.
Regarding 3) and 4), this may best be achieved by creating new MediaWiki messages. I would appreciate the advice of our translation and tech team on this, and of course on the entire proposed process. (I realize that there's not nearly enough time for any number of translations, but we have a fixed deadline of beginning the roll-out of this change by June 15.)
For multimedia, the licensing committee and the Wikimedia Commons community are still discussing the best update strategy, but it will probably involve a bot updating the existing templates. We're also hoping to run a CentralNotice to explain the process to the communities so that people can help to fix up pages and policies.
Thanks for any help in moving this forward, Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
All,
after some internal discussion with the licensing update committee, I'm proposing the following final site terms to be implemented on all Wikimedia projects that currently use GFDL as their primary content license, as well as the relevant multimedia templates:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Please note that these aren't quite yet ready for translation yet (hence labeled draft). Please provide feedback here or on the talk page, ideally by Thursday night UTC so we can move the process forward on Friday.
"the unmodified English original must be included in equal prominence to any translation."
Sorry if it has already been discussed before but, why has the English version to be included in the same page? Isn't a link good enough?
I know how much lawyers like such things, but it makes it harder for non-English languages.
Regarding terms translation, we should make it including a link to every language from every project.
In terms of implementing these changes, I suggest the following:
- That the relevant site configuration variables are updated on June 15;
We also need a technical way of flagging CC-BY-SA only content (page_props?).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides schrieb:
We also need a technical way of flagging CC-BY-SA only content (page_props?).
It was my understanding that this was the responsibility of re-users and that we would not track CC-BY-SA-only content.
ChrisiPK schrieb:
Platonides schrieb:
We also need a technical way of flagging CC-BY-SA only content (page_props?).
It was my understanding that this was the responsibility of re-users and that we would not track CC-BY-SA-only content.
a) Re-users will come to ask us. b) We will be interested on it, sooner or later. c) If there's no established procedure, each wiki will do it their way, just like there's no procedure to follow when importing from other sites (see discussions on foundation-l about why it's bad). On wiki X you'll add a template, on wiki Y it's using certain words on the summary, yet on wiki Z there's no rule for that.
I think such procedure *is* needed.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, ChrisiPK chrisipk@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides schrieb:
We also need a technical way of flagging CC-BY-SA only content (page_props?).
It was my understanding that this was the responsibility of re-users and that we would not track CC-BY-SA-only content.
You're going to track external content, right?
2009/6/9 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com:
Sorry if it has already been discussed before but, why has the English version to be included in the same page? Isn't a link good enough?
In the past years we've seen substantial semantic drift in the various localized/translated versions. Having the English version visible for consistent reference should help to avoid this. A two-column format should make it not-too-irritating.
We also need a technical way of flagging CC-BY-SA only content (page_props?).
No, we're not committing to any advanced tracking of GFDL; it's an obligation of re-users. (Which they should be able to meet by checking for attribution of single-licensed content.)
Erik Moeller wrote:
For multimedia, the licensing committee and the Wikimedia Commons community are still discussing the best update strategy, but it will probably involve a bot updating the existing templates. We're also hoping to run a CentralNotice to explain the process to the communities so that people can help to fix up pages and policies.
Does this mean that GFDL-licensed images on Wikipedia are going to become CC-BY-SA images?
2009/6/10 Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
For multimedia, the licensing committee and the Wikimedia Commons community are still discussing the best update strategy, but it will probably involve a bot updating the existing templates. We're also hoping to run a CentralNotice to explain the process to the communities so that people can help to fix up pages and policies.
Does this mean that GFDL-licensed images on Wikipedia are going to become CC-BY-SA images?
Probably. There's a discussion in progress on Commons.
- d.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/10 Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com:
Does this mean that GFDL-licensed images on Wikipedia are going to become CC-BY-SA images?
Probably.
When?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/10 Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com:
Does this mean that GFDL-licensed images on Wikipedia are going to become CC-BY-SA images?
Probably.
When?
Starting June 15th (or there abouts) {{GFDL}} tags will add a message saying that this image is also licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 provided that the necessary conditions for eligibility are met. So the relicensing will take effect alongside the text relicensing, but the eligibility criteria would have to be reviewed by the reuser by hand initially.
A bot, not yet in existence, will then go through and evaluate the images based on automated criteria into: relicensed, not eligible/not necessary, and needs manual review. Hopefully the bot will sort 95% of images based on clear cut criteria, leaving "only" 100,000 or so to examine by hand.
-Robert Rohde
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org