[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Anthere]

Thanks all :-)

I am foreseeing, with a pinch of anxiety, how blurry
we should make our bylaws to include all povs... Erik
sentence appears fine to me, but I am troubled by all
the interpretations offered.


--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Erik Moeller (Eloquence) wrote in part
> 
> >Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
> 
> >>??? wrote:
> 
> >>>There is even the
> >>>question if we really want to force Wikinews
> users to copyleft their
> >>>content, or if the public domain or an
> attribution license wouldn't be
> >>>more practical in this instance.
> 
> >>Then that project would not be free content.
> 
> >By the definition of the Free Software Foundation,
> that is correct.
> >However, that definition is not the only one. In
> fact, most people have an
> >entirely different understanding of "free content."
> 
> Actually, mav is not correct even by the FSF's
> definitions.
> 
> The FSF doesn't even use the term "content" in the
> first place
> (see
>
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content>),
> but they do use the phrase "free documentation".
> They don't define that phrase specifically, but say
> "The criterion
> for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
> free software [code]."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>),
> and for code they say "The simplest way to make a
> program free
> is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>).
> So the public domain is free, even according to the
> FSF.
> 
> What mav ''intends'' to say, I believe, is that
> Wikinews should be COPYLEFT.
> There are certainly arguments to be made for that
> position.
> But public domain and CC-by documents ARE FREE
> documents.
> As such, even the FSF would be willing to use them
> in GNU documentation.
> PD and CC-by just are not copyleft.  (CC-by-sa is
> copyleft,
> while CC-by-nd, CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa and
> CC-by-nc-nd
> are not even free, at least not by the FSF's
> standards.)
> 
> What is the difference between free and copyleft?
> Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be
> used freely:
> freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and
> freely distributed
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
> or
> <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
> A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be
> used freely.
> 
> For example, the Brothers Grimm published a story
> "Schneewittchen",
> and their work ended up (through the passage of
> time) in the public domain.
> As such, it was free: freely usable, copyable,
> modifiable, and distributatble.
> In 1938, Walt Disney took advantage of the latter
> two freedoms
> to create a derivative work "Snow White", which is
> still copyright today.
> The Disney movie is not free, even though it's based
> on the free Grimm story.
> This was possible because the Grimm story, while
> free, was not copyleft.
> 
> Now, anybody with a soul hates the Walt Disney
> Company (I joke somewhat),
> so this gives an indication of the argument in
> favour of copyleft.
> But there's also the argument that this doesn't
> apply to Wikinews.
> (There are also arguments against copyleft in
> general,
> the Disney problem notwithstanding.)
> 
> We can have this argument, but let's be clear about
> what we're arguing over.
> AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia
> publish non-free articles.
> (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items
> ''within'' articles,
> such as quotations and images, but that is a
> different discussion.)
> The question is whether their freedom must be
> protected by copyleft.
> 
> >>Public domain and non-share-alike attribution
> licenses encourage mutually
> >>incompatible content forks where improvements that
> create derivative
> >>works cannot be re-incorporated back into the
> original - meaning there
> >>is no positive feeback loop.
> 
> >Indeed, and the main question of copyleft vs.
> public domain / attribution-
> >only licenses is "What is more important to me -
> enlarging the body of
> >content available under a free license, or making
> sure that as many people
> >as possbile will be exposed to the content in
> question?"  The possibility
> >that we may want to answer this question
> differently for some Wikimedia
> >projects than for others should not be discounted
> out of hand.
> 
> Does anybody disagree with Erik's final sentence
> here?
> This discussion was sparked (at least in today's
> incarnation)
> by a Foundation rule referring to licences "like"
> the GNU FDL.
> We should continue to discuss and refine our ideas
> about
> what copyleft protection Wikimedia should use for
> our free documents;
> but as far as ''that'' rule is concerned, I believe
> that all we need to do
> is to clarify that by "like" the GNU FDL, we mean
> «free».
> 
> 
> -- Toby
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



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