Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

GFDL-only + OTRS

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

pdsanchez at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 8:53 AM

Post #1 of 15 (917 views)
Permalink

GFDL-only + OTRS

With the license move...
do we still accept GFDL-only material?

I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

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

dgerard at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 8:57 AM

Post #2 of 15 (882 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:

> With the license move...
> do we still accept GFDL-only material?
> I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
reason not to accept it.

- d.

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

pharosofalexandria at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 10:09 AM

Post #3 of 15 (886 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard<dgerard[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:
>
>> With the license move...
>> do we still accept GFDL-only material?
>> I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.
>
>
> Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
> but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
> reason not to accept it.

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.

Thanks,
Pharos

>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

wikimail at inbox

Jun 24, 2009, 10:36 AM

Post #4 of 15 (886 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard <dgerard[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:
>
> > With the license move...
> > do we still accept GFDL-only material?
> > I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL
> only.
>
>
> Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
> but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
> reason not to accept it.

Are GFDL images compatible with non-GFDL articles? I thought the FSF said
they weren't.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pdsanchez at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 1:04 PM

Post #5 of 15 (885 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard <dgerard[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:
>
> > With the license move...
> > do we still accept GFDL-only material?
> > I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL
> only.
>
>
> Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
> but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
> reason not to accept it.
>
>
> - d.
>

No, it's Wikipedia's text
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pdsanchez at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 1:04 PM

Post #6 of 15 (886 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria[at]gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
> licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>

OTRS doesn't handle only commons.

This meant wikipedia's text
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

Jun 24, 2009, 1:13 PM

Post #7 of 15 (885 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria[at]gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
>> licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pharos
>>
> OTRS doesn't handle only commons.
>
> This meant wikipedia's text
>
Text may not be GFDL-only at this point.

--Michael Snow

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 1:44 PM

Post #8 of 15 (881 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

2009/6/24 Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net>:
> Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria[at]gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
>>> licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pharos
>>>
>> OTRS doesn't handle only commons.
>>
>> This meant wikipedia's text
>>
> Text may not be GFDL-only at this point.

Or at any point from now on, unless we want to make the content
impossible to reasonably reuse.

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

rarohde at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 2:04 PM

Post #9 of 15 (886 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net> wrote:

> Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria[at]gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
> >> licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pharos
> >>
> > OTRS doesn't handle only commons.
> >
> > This meant wikipedia's text
> >
> Text may not be GFDL-only at this point.

Actually, there is an important added point that OTRS-ers may help with.

Text originally published under GFDL-only somewhere outside of the Wikimedia
projects can only be relicensed if it was included in one of the WMF
projects before Nov. 1st, 2008. (Or if the original publisher decides to
change the license.)

So, anyone that has handled OTRS requests associated with the inclusion of
GFDL-only text since last November should look at those as potential
copyright violations at this point. This applies specifically to works
published elsewhere under the GFDL. It does not apply if the work was
published elsewhere, but the first GFDL publication was in a WMF site.

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

geniice at gmail

Jun 24, 2009, 2:39 PM

Post #10 of 15 (885 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

2009/6/24 David Gerard <dgerard[at]gmail.com>:
> 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:
>
>> With the license move...
>> do we still accept GFDL-only material?
>> I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.
>
>
> Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
> but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
> reason not to accept it.

Commons accepts all freely licensed files. Under current foundation
policy which regards to what is a free license the GFDL is a free
license.

Thus commons cannot stop accepting such images without changing it's scope.

It's also the case that killing off GFDL-only would likely require us
by the same reasoning to kill of GPL and that would cause significant
issues.

See:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force#Will_GFDL_only_uploads_be_allowed_after_August_1.3F

--
geni

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 26, 2009, 9:02 AM

Post #11 of 15 (830 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

Hoi,
Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should
accept GFDL only material.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/24 Pharos <pharosofalexandria[at]gmail.com>

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard<dgerard[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez[at]gmail.com>:
> >
> >> With the license move...
> >> do we still accept GFDL-only material?
> >> I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL
> only.
> >
> >
> > Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL,
> > but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no
> > reason not to accept it.
>
> Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content
> licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

smolensk at eunet

Jun 26, 2009, 10:32 PM

Post #12 of 15 (816 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

Дана Friday 26 June 2009 18:02:57 Gerard Meijssen написа:
> Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should
> accept GFDL only material.

Does not follow.

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 27, 2009, 1:43 AM

Post #13 of 15 (811 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

Hoi,
It is not obvious because a viral license assumes that all other content
will be contiminated with the same license. Hence when GFDL only is
incompatlible with our projects this material cannot be used in our
projects. This defeats the objective of Commons.

This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to
indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/27 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk[at]eunet.yu>

> Дана Friday 26 June 2009 18:02:57 Gerard Meijssen написа:
> > Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should
> > accept GFDL only material.
>
> Does not follow.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

petr.kadlec at gmail

Jun 28, 2009, 8:45 AM

Post #14 of 15 (773 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

2009/6/27 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>:
> It is not obvious because a viral license assumes that all other content
> will be contiminated with the same license. Hence when GFDL only is
> incompatlible with our projects this material cannot be used in our
> projects. This defeats the objective of Commons.

Mere being on the same server (i.e. on Commons) does not trigger the
virality of the license. And since we have been combining GFDL text
with CC-BY-SA-only pictures (et al.) in our projects for many years, I
don’t think we should now hardly switch to strong-copyleft beliefs and
ban all GFDL.

> This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to
> indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable.

GFDL is a free culture license, copyleft (license virality) is a
completely acceptable condition for Commons.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 28, 2009, 10:49 AM

Post #15 of 15 (767 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL-only + OTRS [In reply to]

Hoi,
The conditions have changed and consequently it should be clear that what we
did in the past has a reduced relevance for what we do in the future. When
material is not usable for our projects it has no place on Commons. One of
the reasons why I feel so strong about it are the people who promised to be
nasty about "their" material that should not become available under a
Creative Commons licens and who deny the option of interoperability.

Either this material can be used or it has no place on Commons.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/28 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec[at]gmail.com>

> 2009/6/27 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>:
> > It is not obvious because a viral license assumes that all other content
> > will be contiminated with the same license. Hence when GFDL only is
> > incompatlible with our projects this material cannot be used in our
> > projects. This defeats the objective of Commons.
>
> Mere being on the same server (i.e. on Commons) does not trigger the
> virality of the license. And since we have been combining GFDL text
> with CC-BY-SA-only pictures (et al.) in our projects for many years, I
> don’t think we should now hardly switch to strong-copyleft beliefs and
> ban all GFDL.
>
> > This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to
> > indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable.
>
> GFDL is a free culture license, copyleft (license virality) is a
> completely acceptable condition for Commons.
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

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