[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Toby Bartels]

Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:

>Toby Bartels 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.

''Does'' anybody want to do anything different?

When Wikibooks was first begun, Karl Wick wanted to write an OChem book
that used a noncopyleft licence (if I'm remembering things correctly).
But now, I don't know anybody that's suggesting noncopyleft for WikiNews,
only people that are considering whether the possibility is a good one.
I may be ignorant of a discussion somewhere else, of course;
but in any case, I agree with you that they need to make their case.

And even if we adopted the not-necessarily-copyleft text that Erik suggested,
then they would still have to make their case.

>>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.

I'm not disagreeing with the duplication/dilution of effort.
The question is whether the average fork (or even the original)
has lower quality.  In Wikipedia's case, this is probably true;
I don't believe that [[w:es:]] is better because of EL, for example.
It's not so clear to me for WikiNews, for the reasons that I gave last time.

>>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.

Of course, we do need to inform them, but we also need to sell to them.
Many local news organisations will begin prejudiced against our material,
and it won't help if we require stricter conditions on them than the AP does.
To be sure, in a sense we require much more lenient conditions;
they can't let others copy the AP material, but our stuff is OK.
However, people that are used to to the Closed framework
are more comfortable with the AP's method, evil as it is.

This is not to say that we shouldn't try to make people understand
the free paradigm.  I'm just pointing out the material fact
that free content will be strange to many prejudiced people.
Thus in convincing them that WikiNews is a good idea after all,
it may well turn out that CC-by works where CC-by-sa does not.
OTOH, it may well turn out that CC-by-sa works where CC-by does not.
I would suggest some surveys before deciding what to use with WikiNews.

>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.

If the incompatibility (in that direction) with CC-by-sa is fixed,
then any incompatibility with CC-by will also be fixed;
I don't see why you brought this up.

>>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.

That's a good point, although the AP is likely to be even more prejudiced
against our material.  That said, after a few years, then they would catch on.
So you're right, this will be the same problem as we have today
when Microsoft incorporates BSD code into Windows.

Thus, anybody proposing CC-by for WikiNews now has a harder case to make. ^_^

>>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.

And hopefully many won't.  If my local newspaper picks up WikiNews --
and I hope that they do! -- then I'll never go to WikiNews as a reader.
Since I don't intend to be a regular editor on WikiNews, I'll rarely go.
So it is important that local organisations pick up WikiNews --
and I believe that you agree. ^_^

>>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. 

Freedom to restrict use of deriviative works is not, IMO,
any sort of freedom of use of the original Wikimedia work.
And it doesn't count as "freedom" in the standard (FSF) meaning,
so nobody will be able to argue that the previous sentence
defends such a freedom.

>>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.

And mine does not.  (That is, whether or not copyleft is a good idea,
the wording that Anthère quoted clearly does not require copyleft, IMO.)
So the discussion will arise again, hopefully with more direct relevance.

Thus, I guess that we can stop here, and give Anthère an answer:
# No, the GNU FDL itself won't necessary have to be used.
# Yes, whaterver licence is used must be free in the FSF sense.
# Who knows, copyleft licences may be required and may not;
  it depends on who you ask.


-- Toby