Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

meta.sj at gmail

May 27, 2009, 2:54 AM

Post #1 of 40 (1097 views)
Permalink

Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

Hello,

The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on August 1 of this year.

I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l
because it is important and time sensitive.

While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to
"offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision", this
has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki
maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of
Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard
deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for
their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia. (I myself had
plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before
realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense --
even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.)

Please help add to the list and contact those that you know:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing

A selection of large GFDL wikis that have not confirmed plans to
change their licenses:

Enciclopedia Libre
PlanetMath
Sourcewatch, congresspedia
the International Music Score Library Project
实用查询Wiki (ReferenceWiki, cn.18dao.net)
湖北百科 (wiki.027.cn)
WikiZnanie
Medpedia, WikiDoc
WikiTimeScale
Vikidia

I've seen a few short discussions on Wikia wikis, but nothing
conclusive... any updates there?

Smaller wikis are more likely to be unaware of the relicensing
decision or implications... and more likely to have been swayed by
"the license Wikipedia is using" when making their initial decision.
There are hundreds of them with great educational material, more than
the dozens listed on meta so far. In particular, I expect there are
many more Chinese, German, Japanese and Russian wikis out there... I
hope we can manage to reach most of them.

Recently Robert Rhode said:
> The migration is an incentive to other sites to also relicense.
> Given that, it behooves us to get moving early enough that other sites
> will also have time to react before the deadline. Seeing the changes
> we make will also give them a blueprint to what they may need to do.
> Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite
> limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort
> to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish
> to change.

The second point makes sense. We do need more outreach; a long-term
sitenotice for anons would be appropriate -- with links to how to
relicense your own wiki, and what this means for reuse of Wikimedia
material / importing your own into an article.

Mainstream press coverage would be nice - perhaps after seeing which
other large wikis are planning to switch as well.

SJ
--

* to be precise, when the license switch takes effect in mid-June,
externally-sourced GFDL content will be made retroactively
incompatible with Wikimedia projects back to November 2008. We have
until August 1 to show partner sites how to relicense so that we
remain compatible.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

newyorkbrad at gmail

May 27, 2009, 4:16 AM

Post #2 of 40 (1063 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

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?

Newyorkbrad

On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein <meta.sj[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
> to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
> The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
> expires on August 1 of this year.
>
> I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l
> because it is important and time sensitive.
>
> While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to
> "offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision", this
> has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki
> maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of
> Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard
> deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for
> their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia. (I myself had
> plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before
> realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense --
> even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.)
>
> Please help add to the list and contact those that you know:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing
>
>
> A selection of large GFDL wikis that have not confirmed plans to
> change their licenses:
>
> Enciclopedia Libre
> PlanetMath
> Sourcewatch, congresspedia
> the International Music Score Library Project
> 实用查询Wiki (ReferenceWiki, cn.18dao.net)
> 湖北百科 (wiki.027.cn)
> WikiZnanie
> Medpedia, WikiDoc
> WikiTimeScale
> Vikidia
>
> I've seen a few short discussions on Wikia wikis, but nothing
> conclusive... any updates there?
>
> Smaller wikis are more likely to be unaware of the relicensing
> decision or implications... and more likely to have been swayed by
> "the license Wikipedia is using" when making their initial decision.
> There are hundreds of them with great educational material, more than
> the dozens listed on meta so far. In particular, I expect there are
> many more Chinese, German, Japanese and Russian wikis out there... I
> hope we can manage to reach most of them.
>
>
> Recently Robert Rhode said:
>> The migration is an incentive to other sites to also relicense.
>> Given that, it behooves us to get moving early enough that other sites
>> will also have time to react before the deadline. Seeing the changes
>> we make will also give them a blueprint to what they may need to do.
>> Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite
>> limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort
>> to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish
>> to change.
>
> The second point makes sense. We do need more outreach; a long-term
> sitenotice for anons would be appropriate -- with links to how to
> relicense your own wiki, and what this means for reuse of Wikimedia
> material / importing your own into an article.
>
> Mainstream press coverage would be nice - perhaps after seeing which
> other large wikis are planning to switch as well.
>
> SJ
> --
>
> * to be precise, when the license switch takes effect in mid-June,
> externally-sourced GFDL content will be made retroactively
> incompatible with Wikimedia projects back to November 2008. We have
> until August 1 to show partner sites how to relicense so that we
> remain compatible.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 27, 2009, 4:38 AM

Post #3 of 40 (1061 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

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

geniice at gmail

May 27, 2009, 4:39 AM

Post #4 of 40 (1063 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

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?
>
> Newyorkbrad
>

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.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

May 27, 2009, 5:16 AM

Post #5 of 40 (1062 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...

lodewijk

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

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 27, 2009, 5:54 AM

Post #6 of 40 (1061 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

> Hello,
>
> The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
> to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
> The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
> expires on August 1 of this year.
>
> I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l
> because it is important and time sensitive.
>
> While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to
> "offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision", this
> has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki
> maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of
> Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard
> deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for
> their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia. (I myself had
> plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before
> realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense --
> even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.)
>
> Please help add to the list and contact those that you know:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing

So what does another wiki which uses Wikipedia material or sometimes
imports material to Wikipedia have to do to accomplish relicensing?

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

May 27, 2009, 5:59 AM

Post #7 of 40 (1060 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

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

meta.sj at gmail

May 27, 2009, 6:02 AM

Post #8 of 40 (1062 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud[at]fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>
>> The relicensing process is underway. 燭his means we have only 2 months
>> to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
>> The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
>> expires on August 1 of this year.
>
> So what does another wiki which uses Wikipedia material or sometimes
> imports material to Wikipedia have to do to accomplish relicensing?

Fred,

Simply announce the change and update all license details and notices
on the site (which for a wiki can be quite a few). Appropedia has
already gone through this in April; they are a good model, and are
moving to a single-license wiki, which I would advise for most
projects:

http://www.appropedia.org/Appropedia:Licence-Migration-CC-BY-SA-3.0

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

newyorkbrad at gmail

May 27, 2009, 6:29 AM

Post #9 of 40 (1053 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

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
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

May 27, 2009, 6:29 AM

Post #10 of 40 (1052 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/27 Samuel Klein <meta.sj[at]gmail.com>:
> 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
>
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
/after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
there any precendence on this is the US?

Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

May 27, 2009, 6:31 AM

Post #11 of 40 (1055 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad[at]gmail.com>:
> 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
>

The Free Software Foundation did, in the 1.3 version of the GFDL.

-- Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 27, 2009, 10:30 PM

Post #12 of 40 (1034 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> 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.
>
>
That's a reasonable expectation. People who are not intimately involved
with the arcana of licensing will just turn off and ignore the
distinctions. Others may just see the rush to get everyone changed the
short period between WMF's adoption of this switch and the deadline date
as an attempt by the big kid on the block to push its policies on others.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 27, 2009, 10:38 PM

Post #13 of 40 (1035 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

effe iets anders wrote:
> Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
> the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
> interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
> the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
> wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
> /after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
> there any precendence on this is the US?
>

I doubt it. I think there is very little precedent anywhere about the
legal effect of these licences. Before a judge renders a decision the
case has to get into court in the first place, and I find it difficult
to imagine who would have the standing to start such a case.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

May 27, 2009, 10:50 PM

Post #14 of 40 (1031 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge[at]telus.net> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> That's a reasonable expectation. 燩eople who are not intimately involved
> with the arcana of licensing will just turn off and ignore the
> distinctions. 燨thers may just see the rush to get everyone changed the
> short period between WMF's adoption of this switch and the deadline date
> as an attempt by the big kid on the block to push its policies on others.

We should certainly take care not to push anyone. I would be
delighted to see sites that do not wish to change sticking with the
GFDL - that's excellent, and it is a great license for people who use
it intentionally. What I mind is sites realizing in half a year the
implications of Wikimedia's switch, and despising the effect it has
had on them, if they chose the GFDL (and perhaps put up with some of
its quirks) simply for WP compatibility.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

May 28, 2009, 1:13 AM

Post #15 of 40 (1034 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge <saintonge[at]telus.net>:
> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>> Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
>> the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
>> interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
>> the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
>> wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
>> /after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
>> there any precendence on this is the US?
>>
>
> I doubt it. I think there is very little precedent anywhere about the legal
> effect of these licences. Before a judge renders a decision the case has to
> get into court in the first place, and I find it difficult to imagine who
> would have the standing to start such a case.
>
> Ec
>

That probably would be someone complaining about someone else
relicensing their content :) Which is not likely, and definitely not
us of course, but mainly a thought experiment. I'm just meaning to
say, it is not too hard to put anything you like in any kind of
agreement/license, but what is the actual value of it? I really don't
know.

Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 28, 2009, 1:28 AM

Post #16 of 40 (1032 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> That's a reasonable expectation. People who are not intimately involved
>> with the arcana of licensing will just turn off and ignore the
>> distinctions. Others may just see the rush to get everyone changed the
>> short period between WMF's adoption of this switch and the deadline date
>> as an attempt by the big kid on the block to push its policies on others.
>>
> We should certainly take care not to push anyone. I would be
> delighted to see sites that do not wish to change sticking with the
> GFDL - that's excellent, and it is a great license for people who use
> it intentionally. What I mind is sites realizing in half a year the
> implications of Wikimedia's switch, and despising the effect it has
> had on them, if they chose the GFDL (and perhaps put up with some of
> its quirks) simply for WP compatibility.
>

As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
that would be more important to them than whether WMF projects import
from them. To say that they chose GFDL for WP compatibility may not be
a sustainable presumption in most cases. I doubt if many of them went
through a lot of legal analysis before choosing a licence; an
it's-as-good-as-anything attitude may very well have prevailed. If WMF
projects can't copy from them it will more likely enhance the uniqueness
of their project, a potentially positive result in a competitive market.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

May 28, 2009, 2:03 AM

Post #17 of 40 (1034 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
> pushy. 燱ikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and

The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.

> the internal debates of others should not matter less. 燗s I understand
> what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;

For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
into a given article. In a matter of months or years they will no
longer be able to import text from the latest pages; they won't be
able to choose then to relicense, because it will no longer be
possible under GFDL 1.3.

This is all we need to convey. If a given site doesn't care, great!
but most people, even those familiar with this process and our
discussions of it, do not understand the long-term implications of the
august deadline. [In part because the limited-time-dual-licensing
language muddies the issue, perhaps.]

> If WMF projects can't copy from them it will more likely enhance the uniqueness
> of their project, a potentially positive result in a competitive market.

I'm worried about small sites that want intercompatibility with WMF
projects (which are the gorilla in the room), and larger ones whose
communities expect this to be a standing option. In terms of raw
content, the fraction of new material that is imported from sites that
aren't already considering switching is small. But we have a certain
obligation to act as stewards for the free sharing of knowledge, in a
networked community that we have helped to build, including thousands
of groups who we don't directly see on Wikipedia but who have made
choices based on ours in the past.

Sites for which compatibility isn't relevant, but choosing the right
free license for wide reuse is, should also understand why we have
wanted this change for years, and why we have decided to make the
transition. We will help others by being proud of this and the
thought (and thousands of legal person-hours) that went into it, not
shy.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikimail at inbox

May 28, 2009, 6:03 AM

Post #18 of 40 (1027 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

> > the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
> > what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
>
> For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
> into a given article.

They'll still be able to incorporate any of the GFDL or dual licensed
material, which is all that really matters since if they want to copy the
*entire* article and not some specific part, there's nothing from their site
to relicense anyway.

I'm worried about small sites that want intercompatibility with WMF
> projects (which are the gorilla in the room), and larger ones whose
> communities expect this to be a standing option. In terms of raw
> content, the fraction of new material that is imported from sites that
> aren't already considering switching is small. But we have a certain
> obligation to act as stewards for the free sharing of knowledge, in a
> networked community that we have helped to build, including thousands
> of groups who we don't directly see on Wikipedia but who have made
> choices based on ours in the past.

The WMF should have thought about that before making the switch, though.
Instead the official line was that this switch was a panacea, and any
suggestion that there were legal problems surrounding it which acted against
the free sharing of knowledge was dismissed as FUD. Short of a miracle,
it's too late to fix it, though.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 28, 2009, 11:21 AM

Post #19 of 40 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

Samuel Klein wrote:
>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
>> pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
>>
> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
>

If we were so fortunate as to have that as the only problem, there would
be nothing to prevent the WMF Board from simply extending the deadline.

>> the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
>> what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
>>
> For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
> into a given article. In a matter of months or years they will no
> longer be able to import text from the latest pages; they won't be
> able to choose then to relicense, because it will no longer be
> possible under GFDL 1.3.
>

Who is going to stop them? Take this too far and it could drift into
the realm of anti-trust legislation.
> This is all we need to convey. If a given site doesn't care, great!
> but most people, even those familiar with this process and our
> discussions of it, do not understand the long-term implications of the
> august deadline. [.In part because the limited-time-dual-licensing
> language muddies the issue, perhaps.]
>

Long-term implications require long-term discussion. The implications
have less to do with such details as a specific deadline, and more with
the terms themselves.

>> If WMF projects can't copy from them it will more likely enhance the uniqueness
>> of their project, a potentially positive result in a competitive market.
>>
> I'm worried about small sites that want intercompatibility with WMF
> projects (which are the gorilla in the room), and larger ones whose
> communities expect this to be a standing option.

Those projects still need to take a positive stand among their own
members that they want such intercompatibility. Absent that, we are
only guessing about what they want.

> In terms of raw
> content, the fraction of new material that is imported from sites that
> aren't already considering switching is small. But we have a certain
> obligation to act as stewards for the free sharing of knowledge, in a
> networked community that we have helped to build, including thousands
> of groups who we don't directly see on Wikipedia but who have made
> choices based on ours in the past.
>

That "certain obligation" sounds like a variation upon the Monroe
Doctrine, or the self-assumed notion of some countries that they have an
obligation to bring democracy to others. Various protestant and
orthodox sects differed from the Church of Rome in that they did not
understand that the passing the keys from Jesus to Peter would
eventually justify the appointment of Grand Inquisitors.

> Sites for which compatibility isn't relevant, but choosing the right
> free license for wide reuse is, should also understand why we have
> wanted this change for years, and why we have decided to make the
> transition. We will help others by being proud of this and the
> thought (and thousands of legal person-hours) that went into it, not
> shy.
>

There is no such thing as a "right" free licence. I'm satisfied by
following a few fundamental principles, and beyond that, saying
"Whatever!" to any licence that people may choose. The challenge is to
make them all fit together, not to make one of them dominant.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 28, 2009, 11:44 AM

Post #20 of 40 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge <saintonge[at]telus.net>:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
>>> pushy. 聽Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
>>>
>> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
>>
>
> If we were so fortunate as to have that as the only problem, there would
> be nothing to prevent the WMF Board from simply extending the deadline.

The WMF didn't set the deadline, the FSF did.

>>> the internal debates of others should not matter less. 聽As I understand
>>> what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
>>>
>> For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
>> into a given article. 聽In a matter of months or years they will no
>> longer be able to import text from the latest pages; they won't be
>> able to choose then to relicense, because it will no longer be
>> possible under GFDL 1.3.
>>
>
> Who is going to stop them? 聽Take this too far and it could drift into
> the realm of anti-trust legislation.

Anti-trust? What does this have to do with anti-trust?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgoodmanny at gmail

May 28, 2009, 11:51 AM

Post #21 of 40 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who wants to use our
content under any such license is welcome, and we will treat yours
similarly, under the presumption that any court would regard the
differences as insignificant.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge[at]telus.net> wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
>>> pushy. 燱ikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
>>>
>> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
>>
>
> If we were so fortunate as to have that as the only problem, there would
> be nothing to prevent the WMF Board from simply extending the deadline.
>
>>> the internal debates of others should not matter less. 燗s I understand
>>> what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
>>>
>> For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
>> into a given article. 營n a matter of months or years they will no
>> longer be able to import text from the latest pages; they won't be
>> able to choose then to relicense, because it will no longer be
>> possible under GFDL 1.3.
>>
>
> Who is going to stop them? 燭ake this too far and it could drift into
> the realm of anti-trust legislation.
>> This is all we need to convey. 營f a given site doesn't care, great!
>> but most people, even those familiar with this process and our
>> discussions of it, do not understand the long-term implications of the
>> august deadline. � [.In part because the limited-time-dual-licensing
>> language muddies the issue, perhaps.]
>>
>
> Long-term implications require long-term discussion. 燭he implications
> have less to do with such details as a specific deadline, and more with
> the terms themselves.
>
>>> If WMF projects can't copy from them it will more likely enhance the uniqueness
>>> of their project, a potentially positive result in a competitive market.
>>>
>> I'm worried about small sites that want intercompatibility with WMF
>> projects (which are the gorilla in the room), and larger ones whose
>> communities expect this to be a standing option.
>
> Those projects still need to take a positive stand among their own
> members that they want such intercompatibility. 燗bsent that, we are
> only guessing about what they want.
>
>> In terms of raw
>> content, the fraction of new material that is imported from sites that
>> aren't already considering switching is small. 燘ut we have a certain
>> obligation to act as stewards for the free sharing of knowledge, in a
>> networked community that we have helped to build, including thousands
>> of groups who we don't directly see on Wikipedia but who have made
>> choices based on ours in the past.
>>
>
> That "certain obligation" sounds like a variation upon the Monroe
> Doctrine, or the self-assumed notion of some countries that they have an
> obligation to bring democracy to others. 燰arious protestant and
> orthodox sects differed from the Church of Rome in that they did not
> understand that the passing the keys from Jesus to Peter would
> eventually justify the appointment of Grand Inquisitors.
>
>> Sites for which compatibility isn't relevant, but choosing the right
>> free license for wide reuse is, should also understand why we have
>> wanted this change for years, and why we have decided to make the
>> transition. 燱e will help others by being proud of this and the
>> thought (and thousands of legal person-hours) that went into it, not
>> shy.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as a "right" free licence. 營'm satisfied by
> following a few fundamental principles, and beyond that, saying
> "Whatever!" to any licence that people may choose. 燭he challenge is to
> make them all fit together, not to make one of them dominant.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 28, 2009, 11:53 AM

Post #22 of 40 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/28 David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com>:
> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
> reuse, and should continue that way. We should 聽simply have told the
> FSF: 聽At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
> compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
> nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who wants to use our
> content under any such license is welcome, and we will treat yours
> similarly, under the presumption that any court would regard the
> differences as insignificant.

Do you have any legal basis for that presumption?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geniice at gmail

May 28, 2009, 11:57 AM

Post #23 of 40 (1023 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

2009/5/28 David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com>:
> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots.

Comparing Affero to just about any other free license shows that to be
completely false.

>Free culture arose to permit
> reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
> FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
> compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
> nothing that needs to be negotiated.

It's a great way to get reuses sued by discruntled wikipedians but has
no useful function. The foundation doesn't hold the copyright on very
much GFDL or CC-BY-SA material so it's opinion is of little wider
importance. The courts on the other hand....

> Anyone who wants to use our
> content

There isn't really any. The foundation is not a major IP holder.

>under any such license is welcome, and we will treat yours
> similarly, under the presumption that any court would regard the
> differences as insignificant.

The odds of a court coming to that ruling are effectively zilch since
it would cause serious issues with the wider legal landscape in
relation to copyright licensing.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 28, 2009, 12:00 PM

Post #24 of 40 (1022 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

> 2009/5/28 David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com>:
>> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
>> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
>> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
>> reuse, and should continue that way. We should 聽simply have told the
>> FSF: 聽At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
>> compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
>> nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who wants to use our
>> content under any such license is welcome, and we will treat yours
>> similarly, under the presumption that any court would regard the
>> differences as insignificant.
>
> Do you have any legal basis for that presumption?

Common sense, but depending on a federal court to consistently apply
common sense is foolish. When they do it, it is to accommodate powerful
political interests.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

May 28, 2009, 1:39 PM

Post #25 of 40 (1018 views)
Permalink

Re: Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1 [In reply to]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
> reuse, and should continue that way. We should 爏imply have told the

So it did. Wikipedia follows much stricter rules of reuse, which is
fair, as it is expected to withstand a much higher degree of scrutiny
and to satisfy everyone, including both licensing zealots and free
culture zealots.

As Thomas and geni note, pissing off our friends and supporters who
feel strongly about the letter of our licenses is a weak foundation on
which to build anything. And while you could argue that generations
hence a strong free culture movement can change our vision of what
copyright means, today we can only be stewards for the intent of
contributors by sticking closely to the shared agreemends under which
we contribute to a common good. In this case that has meant two years
of careful global discussion to effect the change now underway.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com