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

[GerardM]

Hoi,
What you have to consider is why people contribute to Wikipedia or any of
the other Wikimedia Foundation's projects; people contribute to create some
of the greatest free resource on the Internet. Most people do not care at
all what license is used; they care for the result.

When emotional language like "stealing" is used, you have to consider WHAT
is stolen. The original resource is still there and with a CC-by-sa license
the content is still available under a license that is viral in nature. The
reason for changing the license is honourable; the object of this change is
to get rid of the problems that are inherent in a license that was meant to
be used for the documentation of software. A license that was not meant for
content like we create.

Also when you consider the current practice, we do not insist at all on
conformceto the requirements as specified in the GFDL.

Using emotional language like "stealing" is not only wrong, it is also using
the same terminology of the RIAA. Do you really want to compare yourself
with them ???
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 9/11/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Think in a contribuor of the old days, which hasn't contributed to
> Wikipedia for months or even years:
>
> Axel Boldt wrote:
> > I guess that's what it boils down to: how legally risky is my
> > proposition? Granted that I don't have any experience in these matters;
> > I just find it hard to believe that a person could
> >   1) prove that they own the copyright to some Wikipedia content
> By using the account who added that content to the page.
>
> >   2) convince a jury that they never heard about the opt-out offer
> "I left Wikipedia X time ago. Then, i moved and on my new home i don't
> have Internet Access. Why whould i heard about it?"
>
> >   3) claim that the license change caused damages larger than their
> > legal costs.
> "They're stealing my content, part of which i have published on book Y."
> Also, i don't see why this point is needed. You can't relicense others
> work with an opt-out procedure. You can only use an opt-in procedure as
> it was used for insatance by the Mozilla Foundation
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html and removing (replacing)
> all content not opted-in. Which is not feasible.
>
>
>
> > If such whimsical lawsuits are indeed a possibility, then the danger of
> > action should be weighed against the danger of inaction: right now, any
> > past contributor could sue for violating GFDL 4.A, failing to change an
> > article's title after modification. I just don't see how suits like
> > that are viable.
> >
> > --Axel
>
> What do you mean by "Article title"? We do provide an article title
> which changes with every edit. Click on "Permanent link".  It's also
> availabe with the author list. The GFDL itself recommends adding an
> unique number to the end of a title section to make it unique (section 5).
>
> Also, you would also need to prove that you didn't gave permission to
> keep the title when abiding to Wikipedia rules: "You may use the same
> title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version
> gives permission." If we consider that the publisher are not you but the
> Wikipedia project, the case is even clearer.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>