[Wikisource-l] CC-by 2.5 and GFDL compatibility

Fri May 12 22:54:40 UTC 2006

Amgine wrote:
> The CC-by 2.5 license allows content which is created under it to be
> relicensed under another free license which meets its minimums.
>
> The GFDL meets these minimums, but does not allow content created 
under
> it to be relicensed.

My argument was that the GFDL does not meet the minimums because
it lacks an equivalent to CC-BY clause 4a...

Maybe we at Wikisource are confusing two concepts, GFDL-compatible
and free content? Let me quote the emails that apparently trigerred
Wikisource to change its copyright policy.

Kernigh (myself), 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006014.htm
l
> I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some 
noncommercial or
> no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to 
upload
> that source text to en.Wikisource.

In reply, Angela, 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006015.htm
l
> No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
> "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
> released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
> compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
> be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.

   (It actually says "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource 
are
  considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License
  (see Wikisource:Copyright for details)." Wikisource:Copyright had the
  clause which I believed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND contributions.)

Here, "is not compatible with the GFDL" and "is also not a free license"
are listed together.

After this, there were some discussions in the Scriptorium. I was not 
active
on Wikisource at the time, so I was not involved in en.wikisource's 
adoption
of the GFDL-compatibility requirement.

Zhaladshar, 11 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#CC-
NC_license.3F
> Wikisource's policy is that we accept any work that we can legally
> display on the site. We are pretty much open to anything other than
> fair use documents.

Pathoschild, 11 February 2006, in reply
> I asked Jimbo Wales a little while ago, and the general response was
> that we don't want noncommercial licenses on any of Wikimedia's 
projects.

Phr, 11 February 2006, in reply
> CC licenses designated "NC" (non-commercial) are incompatible with the
> GFDL and with the notion of Libre content ([5]) which is one of the 
guiding
> principles of the Wikimedia projects.

Again, both GFDL compatibility and free ("libre") content are mentioned
together. Things started to lean toward GFDL compatibility...

Pathoschild, 12 February 2006, in reply
> For content to be acceptable on Wikisource, it doesn't necessarily 
have
> to be relicensed under the GFDL. However, it must be compatible with 
it;
> ie, we must have the same rights under that license than we do under
> the GDFL.

jwales on IRC, 16 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#Non
commercial_licenses_prohibited
> Noncomercial-only license are basically the same thing as torturing 
kittens.

Zhaladshar, 22 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright_policy
> Please see the Foundation-I mailing list. This has actually come up 
over
> there. It seems that all submissions to WS must be either public 
domain,
> GFDL, or GFDL-compatible.

What had happened on foundation-l?

Angela, 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006026.htm
l
> It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
> Foundation projects require freely licensed text.

Jimmy Wales, 12 February 2006, in reply
> Totally.  That's been foundation policy forever.

Wait... if foundation-l is talking about "freely licensed text", then 
why
is en.wikisource talking about "GFDL-compatible"?

Then en.wikisource adopted the requirement of GFDL-compatibility
in their new copyright policy at 4 April 2006.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Pol
l

----
I should mention that "GFDL compatibility" and "free content"
are not the same. CC-BY is free content, and might or might not be
compatible with the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is free content that is apparently
not compatible witht he GFDL. An Invariant Section that is compatible
with the GFDL is not free content.

We have a chance here. Multilingual/international Wikisource is
discussing a new copyright policy. If they decide to allow CC-BY and
CC-BY-SA licenses, then we might be able to convince en.wikisource
to allow them too. However, I am not sure yet whether or not I want
Wikisource to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_pages

GFDL compatibility or free content? Which one?

-- [[User:Kernigh]]
   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
   http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh

___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com