[Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license




________________________________
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>>> Referring to:
>>>
>>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>>
>>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>>> accurate.
>>
>> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
>> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
>> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
>> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
>> reflect this point.
>
> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
>

I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g.
images that we receive through permissions at wikimedia.org between
November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X?  These were obviously
published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on
this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm
really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired
for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions
team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be
told...

Best regards,
Michael


-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler at gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l