On 5/19/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
IANAL (and it sounds like one is needed) but you
can't change a
license without the consent of all owners of a work. So its
impossible, thus Wikipedia is still using GFDL even though no one
likes it. You might be able to have all /new/ work be on a different
license, but thats kind of pointless and would come at a cost of
people not being able to use content from Wikipedia (as-if!).
When data is imported into Ultimate Wiktionary it will first be
converted beyond recognition of the orignial content. One difference you
discount is that Wiktionay and Wikipedia are GNU-FDL at this moment in
time. Ultimate Wiktionary will be a completely different database and as
such all content can be considered new content with a new license. Why
use the Wikipedia word ??
People commonly take from Wikipedia, for instance articles that don't
deserve Encyclopedia entries get moved to Wiktionary. Given that its
hard enough to stop people from importing
dictionary.com, good luck
explaining they can't use content from Wikipedia.
I still don't see how a change in license for Wiktionary or Wikipedia
could ever be possible. It would be possible had people given up their
copyrights to Wikimedia, but isn't what happens, everyone still has
their copyrights. When an open source software project wants to change
its license they have to go through and get permission from
everyone/every company that has contributed and re-write the parts
they don't have permission for. Quite hard in a software project,
impossible for any of the Wikimedia projects.
Converting something (give a new format?) doesn't mean the original
copyright holders lose their rights to it... works the same with
translation into a new language. German Harry Potter might be
converted beyond recognition as far as J.K. Rowling is concerned, but
she still owns the copyright. And yes I know we're talking about
Wiktionary, not Harry Potter, its an example. :D
Or is Ultimate Wiktionary throwing out everything from current Wiktionary?
I thought it
was generally considered to be in compliance with GFDL
if, for instance, on your mirror of Wikipedia you referenced back to
Wikipedia.org. We'd want to keep the history online somewhere
regardless, perhaps a crawl of the Wiktionaries could be done and just
have it up as static content HTML files (so security and such wouldn't
be an issue). When distributed Ultimate Wiktionary would referenced
its own site and the Ultimate Wiktionary would link to the Wiktionary
archive.
We are only talking Wiktionary here. This has nothing to do with
Wikipedia. Adding History information on a talk page in the Ultimate
Wiktionary DOES allow for pinpointing who contributed to an article it
just does not show WHAT was contributed.
Wikipedia is another GFDL project... I was using it as an example.
I don't think the GFDL requires to show what was contributed, does it?
When we distribute content it will not be in the same
format as the
Ultimate Wiktionary. It will be completely seperate from it and we DO
want people to use it and contribute to UW. As UW will be the source of
.dict information people will update UW in order to improve their next
import.
There will be not one wiktionary archive, the potential exists that all
wiktionaries will be imported into UW and what is the point of keeping
these as archives if they serve no purpose?
To keep a history of the project and you were concerned about giving
credit, so I suggested that a static archive site be created. Not too
complicated I don't think. :)
Thanks,
GerardM