[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

[Gwern Branwen]

On  0, Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> scribbled:
> The Wikimedia projects should switch from the GFDL to the CC-BY-SA
> license.
>
> Why to switch
> =============
>
> When we started, the CC-BY-SA didn't exist and GFDL was the only
> available license that expressed the "free-to-use-and-modify-but-
> creators-need-to-be-attributed-and-the-license-cannot-be-changed"
> idea for textual materials. Since then, we have largely ignored
> the more arcane features of the GFDL, essentially telling our users "If
>
> you keep the license and provide a link back to the original, you're
> welcome to use our materials." In other words, we have always used GFDL
>
> as if it were CC-BY-SA. This practice is unfair for two reasons:
>
>     * People who want to use our content have to trust that we won't
> enforce the more arcane features of the GFDL in the future, such as the
>
> requirement to change the article's title or to explicitly list at
> least
> five principal authors.
>
>     * Contributors to Wikimedia projects have to trust that no one will
>
> exploit the GFDL in the future and encumber their materials with
> non-changeable text ("invariant sections").
>
> By contrast, the CC-BY-SA license has the following advantages:
>
>     * It is simple and fits our precise requirements.
>
>     * It is promoted, maintained and translated by an active
> organization, Creative Commons.
>
>     * It is better known and more widely used than the GFDL, at least
> outside of Wikimedia projects, increasing the potential for re-use and
> collaboration.
>
> We should do the right thing, bring theory and practice into alignment,
> and switch to the CC-BY-SA license once and for all.
>
> How to switch
> =============
>
> Here's the plan: we issue a press release and post a prominent website
> banner, saying that from some specified date on, the current and all
> future versions of all materials on Wikimedia servers will be
> considered
> released under CC-BY-SA. Any content creator who does not agree with
> this change is invited to have their materials removed before that
> date.
....

I'm going to have to agree with the other commentators here.

This is incredibly dubious; you vastly underestimate the scope of those content creators. Perhaps I am totally mistaken here, but what if one contributor from the old days, who edited perhaps a total of 50k different articles (yes, there are disaffected people in that range and up), even if only to do disambiguations or equally modest changes, were to so demand removal of everything? Wouldn't that require all derivative versions of those articles, consisting of countless work and improvement and expansion to be either deleted or somehow excepted and continued to be released under the GFDL?

In addition, I think we should give the FSF/Stallman a chance. They've done well by us in the software area, and I've heard that they seem to've recognized the error of their ways re the GFDL and are seeking to mend them with the GSFDL. If they mess up again, we can then consider your quasi-illegal move to CC-BY-SA. In that outcome, hopefully losing the largest user of their documentation licenses would wake them up a bit.

--
gwern
355ml Weekly () NARF passwd e-bomb ANZUS CdC CIA basement
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070909/01646f93/attachment.pgp