[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[John at Darkstar]

> This will not affect
> Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no
> GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA.

Note is it common in Norway, from previous cases, to be able to opt out
of major single sided changes in such arrangements. Last time this was
discussed in length in media it was about a contract for a satelite TV
company, and it was said very clear that each and every customer had an
right to opt out. Has this been given due considerations, and is there
any other countries where there are any known court cases with such
major license changes? And yes, I do know that some people think that a
licence isn't a contract.

An opt out might be to choose a completly different license or refuse to
give it any license at all, effectivly using Norwegian copyright law and
then creating havoc.

> This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing
> proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely
> available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only
> additions from external sources.

If I understand you correctly; no matter what later Creative Commons
license is choosen, the GFDL in some version will be keept?

> Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by
> any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license
> Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to
> do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly
> permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.

Will Wikimedia Foundation take the role of a publisher when relicensing
content? And how does that affect the editors as those are the owners of
the work. I try to interprete this in the context of Norwegian copyright
law, and I'm not sure if this can be done. I know that some of the
people involved in Creative Commons claims this to be legal.

> If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported
> by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will
> simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic
> copyrighted content.

When you say "we", does you not say that you take on an editorial role?
Can you do that as an ISP?


Erik Moeller skrev:
> All -
> 
> As has been pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has now released
> version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is the
> standard text license used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects with
> the exception of Wikinews. The updated license text can be found here:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> 
> [If you are still seeing version 1.2 on that URL, you may need to
> clear your browser cache.]
> 
> We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us
> to develop this re-licensing language.
> 
> The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This
> section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e.
> wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the
> CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:
> 
> * Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed
> after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL
> content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as
> well. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly.
> Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources.)
> 
> * The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.
> 
> Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by
> any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license
> Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to
> do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly
> permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.
> 
> == Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==
> 
> The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended to
> prevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from external
> sources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators in
> making a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed software
> documentation from being re-licensed without the permission of the
> authors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation to
> agree to this change. While an earlier draft was published, the
> specifics of the migration process have been negotiated privately in
> order to not allow for such systematic bulk-relicensing by interested
> third parties.
> 
> == What's next? ==
> 
> * Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
> Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will
> be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here.
> This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing
> proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely
> available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only
> additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this
> proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission
> for any new changes.)
> 
> It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article
> includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not
> be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional,
> i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
> 
> We _will_  propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads
> for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and
> weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction
> of community members. However, GFDL 1.2-or-later media are
> expected to be migrated to CC-BY-SA under this proposal.
> It is expected that we will launch a community-wide referendum on this
> proposal, where a majority will constitute sufficient support for
> re-licensing.
> 
> * As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing
> external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will
> be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. This will not affect
> Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no
> GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA.
> If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported
> by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will
> simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic
> copyrighted content.
> 
> More information will follow later this month as we develop the
> re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate
> questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Erik