[Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

[Michael Bimmler]

Why, quite a few images we receive are handled under GFDL and not CC.
Call it unwise but that's the reality for the moment.

M.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler at gmail.com