Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Licensing update roll-out

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

erik at wikimedia

Jun 15, 2009, 6:59 PM

Post #1 of 14 (1156 views)
Permalink

Licensing update roll-out

As per the licensing update decision by the community and the Board,
I've updated the site terms on the English Wikipedia (and the WMF
website) today, and posted a reference copy of the site-wide terms of
use to:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

The Wikimedia Commons licensing task force has gone ahead and updated
the relevant GFDL templates on Commons to indicate that eligible media
files may also be available under CC-BY-SA.

The English Wikipedia roll-out serves as a reference implementation
and may lead to some final tweaks in the terms and language. In the
coming days, we'll begin the translation and roll-out in other
eligible projects and languages. Communities will be able to customize
the messages and terms within limits, as described here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation

Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local
bottom-up implementation between now and then.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

walter at wikipedia

Jun 18, 2009, 9:51 AM

Post #2 of 14 (1092 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

Erik Moeller schreef:
[cut]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
>
> Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local
> bottom-up implementation between now and then.

Question;

From the Q&A about this;
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_2009QA

> Are you basically replacing the GFDL on Wikipedia with CC-BY-SA?
>
> No, we proposed that all content currently available under GFDL will also be made available under the CC-BY-SA license, and that all future revisions must be dual licensed, with the exception of CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources.

When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing
update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the
text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License".

No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.

Yes, there is the phrase;
"additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."

But is that not a weasley way of saying it is actually dual-licensed and
also GNU/FDL?

That is not very Wikipedia style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

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

erik at wikimedia

Jun 18, 2009, 10:00 AM

Post #3 of 14 (1085 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir <walter [at] wikipedia>:
> When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing
> update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the
> text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
> License".
>
> No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
>
> Yes, there is the phrase;
> "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."

The GNU FDL does not apply to pages that import CC-BY-SA only content.
We now already have a few examples of that with content imported from
Citizendium. Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
re-users, and because it doesn't apply to all pages, and because
re-users have to verify that it _actually_ applies on a per-page
basis, I think it's completely appropriate to refer to the terms of
use here rather than bloating up the site footer. People have to read
the terms anyway to understand what's going on.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 10:13 AM

Post #4 of 14 (1093 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia>:
> 2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir <walter [at] wikipedia>:
>> When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing
>> update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the
>> text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
>> License".
>>
>> No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
>>
>> Yes, there is the phrase;
>> "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."
>
> The GNU FDL does not apply to pages that import CC-BY-SA only content.
> We now already have a few examples of that with content imported from
> Citizendium. Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
> re-users, and because it doesn't apply to all pages, and because
> re-users have to verify that it _actually_ applies on a per-page
> basis, I think it's completely appropriate to refer to the terms of
> use here rather than bloating up the site footer. People have to read
> the terms anyway to understand what's going on.

That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms"
rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to
follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.

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

erik at wikimedia

Jun 18, 2009, 10:19 AM

Post #5 of 14 (1089 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>:
> That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms"
> rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to
> follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.

The logic behind "additional" is that the phrase says "text is under
..", but the re-user may also want to copy any embedded media in the
page. So it's an attempt to address both the issue of separate media
licensing and alternative licensing options in a single phrase. :-)

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 10:29 AM

Post #6 of 14 (1091 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia>:
> 2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>:
>> That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms"
>> rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to
>> follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
>
> The logic behind "additional" is that the phrase says "text is under
> ..", but the re-user may also want to copy any embedded media in the
> page. So it's an attempt to address both the issue of separate media
> licensing and alternative licensing options in a single phrase. :-)

Ok. Perhaps it is best not to use a single phrase, then. How about
"Text is available under CC-BY-SA, additional terms may apply to
non-text elements. Some elements may also be available under
alternative terms." (or words to that effect). Still pretty concise,
but isn't misleading.

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

stephen.bain at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 10:35 AM

Post #7 of 14 (1093 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller<erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
> re-users,
...

If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to
CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain [at] gmail

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 10:45 AM

Post #8 of 14 (1090 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Stephen Bain <stephen.bain [at] gmail>:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller<erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>
>> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
>> re-users,
> ...
>
> If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
> dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to
> CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?

As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the negotiations.

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

removed at example

Jun 18, 2009, 11:34 AM

Post #9 of 14 (1086 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we
have to keep it forever and ever.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>wrote:

> 2009/6/18 Stephen Bain <stephen.bain [at] gmail>:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller<erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> >>
> >> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
> >> re-users,
> > ...
> >
> > If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
> > dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to
> > CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?
>
> As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the
> negotiations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 11:37 AM

Post #10 of 14 (1091 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado>:
> It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
> version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we
> have to keep it forever and ever.

Existing content will always be available under the GFDL regardless of
what the WMF does, the WMF has nothing to do with it. We're talking
about new content. Legally, there is nothing requiring new content to
be available under the GFDL, that requirement was introduced by the
FSF as a condition for allowing us to switch.

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

removed at example

Jun 18, 2009, 11:40 AM

Post #11 of 14 (1088 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new
edits?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>wrote:

> 2009/6/18 Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado>:
> > It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
> > version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think
> we
> > have to keep it forever and ever.
>
> Existing content will always be available under the GFDL regardless of
> what the WMF does, the WMF has nothing to do with it. We're talking
> about new content. Legally, there is nothing requiring new content to
> be available under the GFDL, that requirement was introduced by the
> FSF as a condition for allowing us to switch.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 18, 2009, 12:07 PM

Post #12 of 14 (1088 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/18 Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado>:
> What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new
> edits?

Either.

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

vacuum at jeb

Jun 25, 2009, 4:16 AM

Post #13 of 14 (916 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

Could there be some updates to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29". In
addition the page at meta says local admins should not interfere with
the roll out, while several projects now have their own improvised messages.

John

Erik Moeller skrev:
> As per the licensing update decision by the community and the Board,
> I've updated the site terms on the English Wikipedia (and the WMF
> website) today, and posted a reference copy of the site-wide terms of
> use to:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
>
> The Wikimedia Commons licensing task force has gone ahead and updated
> the relevant GFDL templates on Commons to indicate that eligible media
> files may also be available under CC-BY-SA.
>
> The English Wikipedia roll-out serves as a reference implementation
> and may lead to some final tweaks in the terms and language. In the
> coming days, we'll begin the translation and roll-out in other
> eligible projects and languages. Communities will be able to customize
> the messages and terms within limits, as described here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
>
> Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local
> bottom-up implementation between now and then.

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

erik at wikimedia

Jun 25, 2009, 1:36 PM

Post #14 of 14 (913 views)
Permalink

Re: Licensing update roll-out [In reply to]

2009/6/25 John at Darkstar <vacuum [at] jeb>:
> Could there be some updates to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
> page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
> says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29"

The English Wikipedia has had the official site terms since June 15.
The code for an override in all languages is now in place as per
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/52361 and the
messages are being translated through <translatewiki.net>, so nothing
should stand in the way of a Monday roll-out. These translated
messages will override any current implementations, but if
implementors have followed the official implementation guide, those
implementations shouldn't do any active harm.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads