[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Daniel Mayer]

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
>... 
> Keep in mind, you're the one that's proposing a stricter policy.
> So it's no surprise that I'm asking you to justify assumptions
> that go into making that policy!

I'm proposing we stay with what we have had all along: Copyleft. Others want to
do something different. So from my perspective, it is they who need to justify
why they want to do something different.  
 
>....
> So, let me see if I have this straight.  First, you're saying
> that there will be more derivative works with (B) than with (A).
> I have to agree that I find this quite plausible. ^_^
> 
> Then, this introduces a new factor, which is dilution of effort;
> presumably lowering the average quality of each fork
> (even ''before'' we consider whether they can be recombined).
> I don't think that I agree with this,
> since more derivative works may be spread more widely,
> causing more people to work on improvement in the first place.

Wikipedia is directly available all around the world already. Thus there is
little need to have derivative works all over the place being worked on
separately. Wikipedia content is also mirrored by many different websites. Thus
extending our reach. The few forks we have are also directly compatible with
Wikipedia. Thus any improvements they make can be reincorporated back into
Wikipedia. We are also not dealing with fiction here: we are writting reference
material. Thus any improvement that is made in one derivative work will likely
also have to be made in every other fork. That is needless duplication of
effort. 

> This is particularly likely in the WikiNews example,
> since any hesitation on the part of news organisations
> to redistribute GNU FDL or CC-by-sa stories
> translates directly into a less widespread audience.

The CC-by-sa is already well-suited for WikiNews. We just need to inform
newspapers exactly what they can do with WikiNews content - just as the
Associated Press already informs newspapers what they can do with AP content.
Dual-licensing with the GFDL will make it possible to use WikiNews content in
any other Wikimedia project. Hopefully the compatibility issue will be fixed
soon. 

>  ...
> With Wikinews, however, this deadline would arrive even faster.
> As 95 years is an insanely long time to protect an encyclopaedia article,
> so even 14 years would be an insanely long time to protect a news story.
> One day might be enough, and one week would surely suffice;
> so this makes it less significant if the protection dwindles to zero.
> Any proprietary fork would have only a week's worth of useful material.

How would that work if content is under the CC-by? The AP could get Wikinews
content as soon as it is published and add improvements, thus making a
proprietary derivative work right away. Then only the AP could grant
distribution rights to the superior version. 

So instead of taming the monster, we would be feeding it.  
 
> ...
> But now you've given more detailed reasoning in another direction,
> so if you agree that the bullet-point argument in insufficient by itself,
> then we can set the above mistaken premise aside.

Agreed. 

> ....
> That's certainly a reasonable pragmatic position for Wikipedia;
> there is little point in having encyclopaedia articles mirrored,
> since people only look in an encyclopaedia on special occasions.

Mirrors are fine since they reduce load on our servers and expose our content
to people who might not have read it otherwise. Forks are problematic. 

> ...
> But the situation with WikiNews will probably be very different.
> First of all, many people consistently look for news every day,

And hopefully in time many will go to Wikinews as a source for unbiased and
factual news. 

> ...
>It should be the Wikimedia Foundation's policy
>that, whatever may come up in the future (like WikiNews),
>our goal shall be to develop content for free use by others.

Not when that freedom is the freedom to restrict use of derivative works. 

>But it should not be the Wikimedia Foundation's policy
>that copyleft shall always be the best way to realise that goal.
>We may yet find ourselves in a situation where it isn't.

I still hold that copyleft should always be our default position. If and when
copyleft has proved to be an unreasonable hindrance to a particular project
that is preventing it from becoming viable, then we can re-consider other
options. 

>Maybe we should just retain the ambiguous wording
>that Anthère first asked about???

For the time being that is fine by me since my interpretation of the wording
includes copyleft. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/