[Foundation-l] Stream of consciousness story about license migration

[Dan Collins]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was trying to sleep. The worst thing which may happen during this
> process is to think about something interesting. A couple of hours ago
> I was talking with Tazeh again. We really enjoy in talking to each
> other about Serbia and Iran and what do we know about each other's
> country. From talk to talk I am more and more fascinating with Iran.
> Their society stays very well despite all predispositions. And I am
> really interested in how their ordinary life looks like. I've got an
> idea! I'll suggest to Tazeh an action: I will go through Belgrade once
> per week and make photographs of it, while he will do the same in
> Zanjan. Then, we put our photos at Commons, we will be able to see the
> ordinary life in each city and to give to others the same possibility.
> I should put some license there. CC-BY is good enough. Oh, no! My rule
> is that whenever I want to give something under CC-BY, I should put it
> under CC-BY-SA. Yes, even I don't have any relation to my photos and I
> would be content with PD, too, I should copyleft them. Copyleft... No,
> it is not reasonable to put photos under GFDL. It makes photos
> useless. Photos under GFDL? Oh, Erik was talking about that problem.
> There are a lot of images under GFDL and this is a problem. Some
> people gave their photos under GFDL. Yes, people are usually giving
> their work under GFDL, it is a Wikipedia license. ... ... ... Ahhhh! A
> lot of non-contributors to Wikipedia gave their work under GFDL to
> contributors of Wikipedia! It is a really mess! Isn't it? Time to wake
> up!
>
> * * *
>
> I am sure that someone thought about that, but I would like to know
> how it was addressed? If it is a top secret, say so and it would be
> enough.
>
> I realized that whenever I asked for permissions (for texts), I didn't
> ask for "1.2" nor for "any later". I was asking for "giving the work
> under GFDL, which means that work may be used for any purpose,
> including commercial, non-commercial, academic etc. while it stays
> under the same license". I don't think that any of permissions which
> I've got for Wikipedia are questionable in that sense because I
> described any copyleft license and the first part "under GFDL" is
> generally irrelevant. However, we have tons of such permissions...
> AFAIK, GFDL 1.3 will say something in the sense that products of
> wiki-like work may switch to CC-BY-SA. If we got a complete article
> (whatever the size is) from some place under GFDL, that work was not
> usually made in a wiki process. Such work was given under the
> particular conditions, which me-amateur-lawyer interprets as "under
> GFDL, maybe under some later version, but no way under some other
> license".
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Don't you hate when you're trying to get to sleep then suddenly realize
something? It usually takes me at least a half our to get to bed after that
:( Or when you're half asleep and then jerk awake?

Totally offtopic.

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

-- 
DCollins/ST47