[Wikipedia-l] Re: The elections are on, but I cast a blank ballot!

[Angela]

On 6/30/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> >In practice, this is how people are already
> > interpreting the GFDL. I am aware of very few mirrors who credit the
> > authors rather than simply crediting "Wikipedia" and linking to the
> > original article.
> 
> I made it clear in my email that I was already aware of the wikipedia
> copyright page, and it's lack of strict conformance with the GFDL. I
> mentioned it clearly and specifically and quite frankly I am somewhat
> offended that you paid my message little enough credit or attention
> that you failed to notice this.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't not notice it. I just wanted
to clarify it for others on this list. :)

> > The only request has been the fairly general one of making the license
> > easier to understand. 

> Easier to understand is a fair request.  However, with the text "Work
> is underway to make the process of reusing the content much simpler.",
> you contradict yourself. Which is it?

I see these as the same point. If the license is easier to understand,
reusing the work is much simpler. One problem now is that people
simply don't know how to adhere to the GFDL. There's no simple version
like the CC have with their "human-readable summaries" meaning the
board address frequently gets mails from people asking whether they
can use the work, and what they need to do.

> As I said, "and I have great faith that the Free Software Foundation
> would not make unwise changes to later versions of the GFDL", but
> specifically I was requesting confirmation that the foundation was not
> even *requesting* changes in the future versions which would grant
> Wikimedia special rights which a fork of Wikipedia would not have

We're not requesting any changes that would hinder a fork while
benefiting the Foundation. Our aim is to make use of the content
easier, not to make use of the content by forks harder.

> I am well aware of this, however, it would be unacceptable for
> Wikimedia to be granted a special right over the material in the fork
> simply because Wikimedia hosted the content first.

The fork could choose to maintain the current content under the
current GFDL, so any changes to the license could not guarantee
Wikimedia any rights over that forked content.

> Considering my past correspondence with with FSF and their long term
> track record, I would gauge the chance of them approving such a change
> to be something near a snowballs chance in hell... Because of this, I
> was simply looking for the confirmation that the board wasn't even
> trying to request such a thing.  If anything your reply has only
> increased my concern.  As what is almost certainly the single largest
> user of the GFDL, and probably one of the most important it would be
> foolish to assume we have no clout.

No, we're not trying to request any changes that would grant Wikimedia
additional rights.

> If you believe that adding additional terms to a page separate from
> the licence notice that every contributor sees somehow permits the
> wikimedia foundation to redefine the GFDL then you are sorely mistaken
> and are potentially putting the foundation in a legally precarious
> situation.

That isn't what I meant to imply. It might be useful for Jimmy to give
some feedback from his recent meeting with Eben Moglen on this point.

> > The main issue here seems to be the next version of the GFDL, which
> > neither the board nor the Wikimedia community has any control over.
> 
> This is inaccurate. As one of the largest users of the GFDL it would
> be foolish to deny that we have some degree of influence.

I agree it has influence over it, but that's not the same as control.

Angela.