[Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
optimal, but I think it's highly likely.

Who set the August 1 deadline and who has the power to extend it if needed?

Newyorkbrad

On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
> copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
> chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
> Wikipedia -- and  they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
> updates over months or years.   (we are also gaining direct access to
> new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle)
>
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
>> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
>> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
>> be dual licensed.
>
> Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is
> possible.  This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia
> benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only
> last so long.  Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future
> revisions of the article are BY-SA only.  Within a couple of years,
> Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical
> snapshot still available under GFDL).  Third parties should not be
> fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a
> dual-licensed project forever.  If they don't switch now, they will
> not have the chance to do so in the future.
>
>
> geni writes:
>> Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely
>> that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in
>> future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been
>> imported.
>
> A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the
> outreach page will show you that it's not true that "most existing
> stuff of relevance has long been imported" -- these are active
> communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw
> from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in
> return.
>
> I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or
> importers.  I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source
> text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of
> that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the
> obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page.  Maybe I
> wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global
> publicity blitz.
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>> as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
>
> Exactly.    And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
> that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
> and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert,
> but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work
> through their own red tape.
>
> SJ
>
>
>> 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>>> 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>:
>>>> Thanks for circulating this.
>>>>
>>>> Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
>>>> or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
>>>> understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
>>>> own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if
>>>> nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone?
>>>
>>> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
>>> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
>>> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
>>> be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other
>>> wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and
>>> recommends they convert, then we should be ok.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>