[Licom-l] Deleted Content

[Mike Godwin]

Assuming I understand the question correctly (always a good caveat in these
discussions), I would distinguish conceptually between "republished" and
"restored."  One possible interpretation, given this distinction, is that an
MMC may include an edit history that contains deleted content, but the MMC
itself remains published (or is republished), and the relicensing  applies
to everything in it, including the edit history, including deleted content.

I think this may be the interpretation that involves the least amount of
administrative overhead.

What do you think?


--Mike


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> A question was asked at Meta that I can't answer.
>
> Does the relicensing proposal affect content that has been deleted?
> More importantly, if currently deleted pages were to be restored at
> some point after relicensing, which license(s) would apply to the
> restored content?
>
> Obviously the answer that makes life easy is to apply the relicensing
> to everything, but a close reading of the license migration terms
> makes me think that this may not be correct.
>
> To quote GFDL 1.3: "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC
> contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time
> before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing."
>
> It feels like something of a stretch to claim that anything in our
> deleted archives would be "republish"-ed until it is also undeleted,
> which makes me wonder if the August 1st date implies a limit on when
> content must be restored in order to count it as part of the
> migration.
>
> It is uncommon for deleted content to be restored months after the
> fact, but if there is a license imposed limit here, it seems like
> something to pay attention to.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/attachments/20090420/fde17bf7/attachment.htm