I notice that when I go to save, the site currently tells me "By clicking the "Save page" button, you ... agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." I don't mind my contributions being licensed under more-or-less any open license, and I know WMF generally uses CC+GFDL for historical reasons, but I suspect that there might be problems using it here.
Originally, WT used CC-BY-SA 1.0, which lacked an "or any later version" clause, so it could not just be switched to 2.0 or whatever. After much discussion, the WT license was changed to CC-BY-SA 3.0 and it is still there. I am not sure what license (the independent site) WV used, or whether they made changes over time.
As I understand it, everything we imported from WT was CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed. That gives us the right to use it & modify it, but I don't think to re-license it under GDFL. We know perfectly well that Internet Brands are litiginous; does this give them something they could be annoying about?
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Sandy Harris sandyinchina@gmail.com wrote:
I notice that when I go to save, the site currently tells me "By clicking the "Save page" button, you ... agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." I don't mind my contributions being licensed under more-or-less any open license, and I know WMF generally uses CC+GFDL for historical reasons, but I suspect that there might be problems using it here.
Good catch. I think the dual-licensing requirement should probably be removed for Wikivoyage wikis. I'll raise it with legal.
Erik
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Sandy Harris sandyinchina@gmail.com wrote:
I notice that when I go to save, the site currently tells me "By clicking the "Save page" button, you ... agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." I don't mind my contributions being licensed under more-or-less any open license, and I know WMF generally uses CC+GFDL for historical reasons, but I suspect that there might be problems using it here.
Good catch. I think the dual-licensing requirement should probably be removed for Wikivoyage wikis. I'll raise it with legal.
It can't hurt to run it past the legal experts, but I don't see a real problem here. You're only being asked to dual-license your contribution, not the page as a whole.
I think there would only be a problem if we claimed that entire Wikivoyage pages were dual-licensed (if they contain anything imported from Wikitravel). Hopefully we don't do that.
Requiring dual-licensing on Wikivoyage does have the advantage that fresh contributions to Wikivoyage can then be copied directly into Wikipedia and other wikis that require the same dual license.
Avenue
wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org