[Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

[Robert Rohde]

Right now we have a massive mix-and-match licensing scheme when it
comes to images.

Regardless of whether any of them are affected by this, we will still
have a massive variety of image licenses after any migration takes
places.

At the moment, I think the focus needs to be sorting out the text
license, and not let ourselves get too hung up on image rights, which
are going to be a mess regardless.

-Robert Rohde


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>