Talk:Licensing update/Archive 1

Why on Meta?

The WMF doesn't decide what each project licenses as, it's on a per-site basis. Why would such a discussion be on Meta, rather than the local projects? The WMF can't tell en.wikinews what to use anymore than they can tell pl.wp or en.wp. rootology (T) 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Related curious discussion here in answer to this. rootology (T) 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WMF has always made, or approved, key licensing decisions that have affected multiple projects; see the Resolution:Licensing policy and the Resolution:License update as examples. Given the possible outcome of multiple mutually incompatible projects if each project decided on its own what path to take here, I think a centralized approach has clear benefits in this instance.--Eloquence 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ported CC-by-Sa?

Why cc-by-sa-unported and not an option, that every wiki choses a/some ported version(s) in it's own languag (de/at/ch-de for de-projects or fr/be/ca etc for fr-projects)? Most people in the World do not understand English. Syrcro 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the Wikimedia projects are language-based while the ported CC licenses are legal-jurisdiction-based. There is no one-to-one correspondence between languages and legal-jurisdictions. (This also means that the French Wikipedia is not related at all to the country of France; it is for all French speakers whether they reside in France, Quebec, Vietnam, etc., or even just a French-language student in Japan or China.) --seav 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just point out that occasionally clauses that should be deleted in the porting process aren't, resulting in license incompatibility issues.(I don't have the list in front of me, but at least one CC-BY-SA 2.5 (country) is incompatible with CC-BY-SA 2.5 unported.)Pseudo daoist 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Most wiki-languages belong to one to three countries, in with 95+% of all speakers and user living in; only en - and unported is allready in English - es, fr and ru of the biggest 25 don't. Why not these country's cc-variants and unported as multi-license? Syrcro 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, many countries are multilingual; for instance, German is the most-spoken language in DE, AT, CH and LI. Country-specific licences don't work well in international projects. Sandstein 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to say: many languages are polycentric? German is spoken in DACH; in total there live about 98% of all native speakers - there are even more German native speakres in Australia than in Liechtenstein. There are streats in NYC with more inhabitants than Liechtenstein and thats no argument against a multi license policy. Syrcro 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects are simply projects that are international in scope and just happen to be multi-lingual. Because they are international in scope, the projects should use just the unported licenses. The German Wikipedia is for all German speakers (native or not) wherever they reside, and not just for Germany, Switzerland, and the German-speaking regions of Belgium and France. --seav 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We like to move content between languages and there are potential risks of the ported licenses not being exactly equiv.Genisock2 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Will there be a CentralNotice?

As (actually) every single contributor should be asked to vote for or against this major (and lasting) change, the question is: will there be a CentralNotice? We put a CentralNotice on top of every wiki for getting a lot of money, so we could also do so for such a very important vote, for which we have to get as much votes as possible! --- Best regards, Melancholie 13:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume. Cbrown1023 talk 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stewards/elections_2009/Translation/CentralNotice --Melancholie 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... that's about the Steward elections... --Tango 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Melancholie means that since there's one for the steward elections, then there will probably be one for the licensing update. Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This, and that the dates of this votings/CentralNotices are overlapping. Furthermore, we should begin to translate for that CentralNotice soon too (before the vote starts). --- Best regards, Melancholie 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, we can display multiple notices at once with CentralNotice (so this shouldn't be a problem). However, I'm finding out now if the "hide" button would hide both notices or just the one that you hit "hid" on (we don't want people seeing a notice about the stewards election, think they're hiding that, and then end up not seeing the licensing update one). Also, yes, we can start translating now. But, I'm sure the translations will really start pouring in once we have a notice up. :-) We didn't really advertise too much before deployment for the Stewards election and we now have almost 65 languages supported. I would agree, though, that we can start translating now... I'll write up a page when we have things confirmed. Cbrown1023 talk 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I started a translation landing page here. Cbrown1023 talk 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify that attribution via reference to page histories is acceptable if there are more than five authors.

1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the page. 2)the methods you would have to use to make this legal make wikipedia incompatible with other CC works (and also result in the rather amusing situation of trying to present a URL as an attribution party). Since they could not be added to a wikipedia page since the external author would not have agreed to such attribution parties.

While I strongly object to the use of clause 4(c)i by the foundation on the grounds of principle alone I can see no way a URL can be considered an attribution party within the context of the license and thus no way the 4th part of the lead can be legal.Genisock2 02:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sprachen

Gibt es das auch in deutsch oder anderen Sprachen irgendwo zu lesen? -- smial 08:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Für die FAQ, ja: Licensing update/Questions and Answers/de. Diese Seite ist ja noch nicht fertig. --Euku 09:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Decision-making process

Some basic questions:

• Will there be a minimum turn-out? Should fewer than 10% (or some other figure) of editors who have the right to vote cast a ballot will / should the decision stand?
• If an editor votes against the re-licensing does that mean the articles they have edited in the past will be stuck in GFDL-only rights?
• Is a simple majority required (50% of votes cast +1) or some complex differential? Should there be a minimum majority to change?
• Is this a 'one time only' ballot? If sufficient editors felt that the margin in favour of the change was minimal could the ballot be re-opened?

Please note that I'm not against the change, but clarification of intent now will save issues being created after the event later. --Alison Wheeler 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 50% issue: See answer in page (Quote: "If 50% or more of the voters who express a preference support the change, it will be referred to the Board of Trustees for approval.") --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers for a place for such frequently asked questions. --- Regards, Melancholie 15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I would answer those questions:

• Assuming the vote is in favor, turnout may be a consideration prior to implementation, but I doubt it will be a big one. We have deliberately set the edit threshold very low compared to other votes, to ensure that virtually everyone who has licensed contributions of any significance gets the chance to participate. The natural consequence is that turnout is likely to be much lower in terms of the proportion of eligible voters. Giving the opportunity to vote is a higher priority than dragging everyone to the polls, I would say, although we will use sitewide notices and other efforts to ensure that as many as possible are aware of the vote.
• I believe the vote will be independently administered by SPI using secure ballots, as in board elections, so we won't have any record of individual editors' preferences from it. Any relicensing that happens will apply to everything that can be relicensed under GFDL 1.3.
• Simple majority is the minimum threshold. It's then up to the board if there's some reason to say the majority was not sufficient.
• I imagine there will only be one such vote. We have a decision to make and a deadline for making it (also, other sites are waiting on our decision). I'm not sure what purpose reopening the ballot would serve if there's a narrow margin other than to give the "losing" side another bite at the apple and sow confusion. Rather, that's why the board takes ultimate responsibility for relicensing, should a majority vote in favor of it. --Michael Snow 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just linking?

I have started a discussion/put a question on Q&A talk page. Leo Johannes 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Erik's edit

• "'Reasonable' here is to be understood so to not impede your ability to reuse the work" This is getting dangerously close to giving legal advice.

• Where giving credit to each individual contributor would exceed normal bylines and impede your reuse of the work or aggregate or combination of works, clearly and visibly referencing a reliably and freely obtainable copy of the work which includes a list of all authors, or a list itself, is considered acceptable credit." We cannot do this. Remember we can only make that kind of stipulation if the authors explicitly agree to it. Problem is when we re-licence all those olds edits will be under CC-BY-SA but the authors will not have agreed to this (there other reasons but lets start with a simple one).
• Geni 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• • It can be part of the terms under which authors contribute. With regard to past edits, I do believe this is consistent with expectations set forth by the GFDL as I've explained repeatedly; however, we can also offer an option for explicit attribution to the (likely few) users who object to this, and gradually factor out their edits.--Eloquence 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "expectation" or any derivatives thereof does not appear in the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Therefor expectations are not relivant. If you wish to make an argument that you can do this with old revisions please make explcit reference to whatever bits of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL 1.3 you think makes it posible.Geni 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 'principal authors' limitation for visible byline credit, established practice to link to page histories as per existing terms of use, etc.--Eloquence 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You've failed to provide a complete rational since nothing you've mentioned is remotely relivant to what you would need to have even a hope of being allowed to do what you want to do under CC-BY-SA-3.0 (I still don't think you can at all). Still might as well take apart some of it while we are waiting for you to complete. en:Wikipedia:Terms of usedoesn't say anything you are suggesting it says. The following 4(b) of the GFDL won't help you unless you follow 4(I) as well. Established practice is more varried than you seem to think and in any case GFDL license violations by resusers are not relivant to the implementation of CC-BY-SA-3.0.Geni 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained to you many times that CC-BY-SA allows for attribution by name and URI; your assertions to the contrary are contradicted by CC's own counsel. I'm not going to entertain that argument, as I have limited energy and time to debate non-issues. The GFDL and reasonable interpretations thereof as developed through wikipedia:copyrights, etc., are consistent with the language in the current draft.--Eloquence 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have shown why your explanations are either false or irrelivant. Further arguments by assertion are not going to help you.Geni 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have faith in the wisdom of the greater community considering this issue.--Eloquence 23:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then you will be happy to propose that method of atribution seperately and let it stand and fall on it's own.Geni 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we'll keep it as part of the proposal for now. Since this is explicitly a WMF-led process, please stop inserting your personal preferences without consensus. I'd prefer not to protect the page, as some of your edits have been useful and are wanted.--Eloquence 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I protected it before I saw the message here... but the continual warring is not helping. If geni or anyone else has useful suggestions for the page they can propose them on here. You two can also continue discussion here about whether or not to change what you two are fighting about. Cbrown1023 talk 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The reason this is on Meta is to simplify implementation of changes we all agree with, but this is a draft proposal by the Wikimedia Foundation to the community, not a proposal by the community to the community.--Eloquence 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You stated that you "have faith in the wisdom of the greater community considering this issue". If this is the case you would have no problem with the community deciding the issue. If the community is reasonably going to do that your crediting proposal needs to be put separately. Otherwise we face the situation where you are giving the appearance of telling the community that if they want CC they have to accept your crediting proposal. No if you are prepared to accept the "wisdom of the greater community" you should be quite happy to present your credit proposal separately.Genisock2 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed terms of use

I see in the text: "A standard copyright policy will be provided, which is to be translated literally into other languages". I think it should be better to let the local wiki free to add different text in accordance to the specific laws, don't you think? It would be much easier to avoid local legal causes. --Lucas 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lucas. I have an impression that on Japanese Wikipedia many people tries to follow GFDL more literally than those on English Wikipedia. The text under the "submit" button on Japanese Wikipedia has been modified based on rounds of discussions as well. I do not in theory oppose the idea of uniform text and terms of use, but it needs to be better and more comprehensive than the current proposal in order to properly address the legal risks, concerns, and other interests of Wikimedians of various local projects. Tomos 14:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, that sounds like a mess. Languages don't pass laws, governments do.

I consider it a mistake to think of projects in languages besides English to be "local" to somewhere. Which country owns the Spanish Wikipedia? Does the Kurdish Wikipedia interpret CC-BY-SA according the laws of Turkey, Iraq, or Iraqi Kurdistan? Is there a different English Wikipedia that uses the laws of the United Kingdom, or do their lawyers have to settle for jurisdiction over the Welsh and Gaelic Wikipedias?

Right now, we know whose laws govern any project in any language: the laws of the state of Florida, because that is where the Foundation is incorporated. Allowing translators to replace these laws as they replace the words would be crazy, and would probably undermine the legality of the whole process. Rspeer 07:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that gawiki has nothing to do with the UK :) Stifle 12:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates

This page is full protected for some reason.

Per foundation-l, could someone strike the Feb. 9 - Mar. 9 dates, since the vote is being delayed by an unspecified amount of time to allow additional opinion gathering. Dragons flight 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"some reason" can be easily found in the log. I unprotected it, feel free to make your changes. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

“the Board may [...] modify the proposal”

“the Board may choose to deliberate further, modify the proposal, or implement it as is.”

I understand that the Board has The Power and that Wiki(p/m)edia is not a democracy. But spending time fine-tuning the wording, giving extensive explanations to concerned contributors in our communities and using secure vote servers are deceiving tasks if there is a clause giving explicit permission to change everything after a vote is held.

So, my question is: Will the community be referred to if the Board changes a substantial part of the proposal? Wouldn't it be possible to involve directly the Board members (even informally) into the proposal writing, to be sure we know what we are voting on? Jérôme 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

As it stands, there's a strong implication that ALL GFPL content will be converted to CC-by-SA, including images. I think that images should be carefully and very explicitly excluded from this proposal. Adam Cuerden 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? The GFDL is especially onerous for image reuse. CC-by-SA is certainly a more appropriate license for images. Kaldari 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with this proposal on the listserv?

I heard that the voting was delayed due to details being hammered out on the listserv. Can someone provide a brief summary of what's going on for those of us who aren't subscribed? Thanks! Kaldari 20:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. Can someone please give us an update on events? --Michaeldsuarez 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Got an update from Erik Möller. He says that he is planning on conducting a feeler survey about attribution models next week. He says that they might tweak some of the language in the proposal based on the outcome of the survey. He also says that he is currently communicating with SPI about administering the proposal vote as an independent third party. He says the Foundation's goal is to run and wrap up the vote before the next Board meeting in early April, so the Board can discuss the results at that time. Kaldari 18:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The listserv discussions can be followed here. Kaldari 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to the CC legal code

The current version contains a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 unported. I assumed the license to be migrated into would be CC BY-SA 3.0 US, which was mentioned in the Foundation's resolution foundation:Resolution:License_update.

Sorry if I missed any discussion on this, but unported license is more of a prototype to work on than a finished license, so I thought it might be better to choose US or let each local wikis chose the easiest jurisdiction-specific license for them to deal with.

Tomos 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of CC licenses

It might be stating the obvious, but many CC licenses include the provision that unless agreed mutually in writing, the license is the whole of the agreement. No interpretation or understanding about the license exit.

See, for example, 8.d. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported [1] or 8.e. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 US [2]

So there is a chance, I suppose, that provision on how to properly attribute might turn out to be wrong as an interpretation of the CC license.

I do see that having some guideline would be helpful for downstream users, but we (including the Foundation) certainly do not want to give false impression that certain attritbution practice complies with the license where such certaintly does not exist. Tomos 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have certainty in our interpretation. Considering that wikis are a very unique class of intellectual property, however, it seems pertinent that we offer at least some basic guidance on how we think these licenses actually apply to our content. This is not a new practice for Wikipedia. We have plenty of guidance on how to interpret the GFDL, fair use, and other legal concepts for which we are not considered an actual authority. Kaldari 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When we Vote & my views

when we vote this?

I think that double licensing leaves out many contents licensed under GFDL that might be added to Wikisource, a double licensing is good idea for Wikipedia, but a projects like Wikisource not. Other example, Wikinews, is currently not GFDL, so i have a question,

Is double Licensed good Idea for all projects? I think that might do exceptions for imported contents in some projects like Wikisource: if the content to import is GFDL, could clarify that is not licensed doubly. After all, in Wikisource all the content is imported, for example a something in the public domain can not be licensed under GFDL or CC.

For other side, in Wikinews in spanish we import from a Newspaper with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/es/ , question: this licence remain compatible? If not, then we lose an important resource. Regards Shooke 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only case in which having GFDL content on WikiSource would be a problem is if that content was imported into WikiSource after November 1, 2008. Personally, I'm not aware of any content on WikiSource that has been imported from a GFDL source that was not another Wikimedia project. Do you have any examples? Indeed, this should actually make it easier to import more work into WikiSource since Creative Commons works will now be allowed. Public domain sources will still be treated the same - they will not be licensed at all and will appear with a template notifying the viewer that the work is public domain. I don't have enough knowledge of WikiNews to answer your other question. Also, the vote will be held some time before April according to the WMF. Kaldari 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attribution survey has begun

A survey regarding the attribution issue has been started. Please register your opinion there. Kaldari 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's not available anymore, is it already over? --Elitre 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was just a small "feeler"-survey. Not the official vote or anything. Cbrown1023 talk 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I found some answers on foundation-l. And can't believe my eyes. --Elitre 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding Erik Moeller's message about results and next steps. --Elitre 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-use and attribution clarifications

«If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later»: that's not true, one can choose the GFDL if the content is available under the GFDL, can't he?
Attribution: what does «where possible» mean? I can add a link on a book or a DVD for offline use, but readers would not be able to reach the page or history, while it wouldn't normally be too onerous to list all authors (the real problem is to include a full copy of the GFDL, especially on gadgets such this: see last page). --Nemo 10:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior works

Should we note in our footer something along the lines of (Edits produced prior to %IMPLEMNETATIONDATE% are released solely under the GNU Free Documentation License) for at least some period? xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussions Hidden Elsewhere

Although this is a current discussion, some of it has been archived! (Note the archive link(s) to to the right.) Also, some discussion has been filed under Questions and Answers/Oppositionalarguments. (With this note, I'm simply trying to avoid duplication and obfuscation, which is why I'm putting this at the top.) --Elvey 03:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to the CC legal code

The current version contains a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 unported. I assumed the license to be migrated into would be CC BY-SA 3.0 US, which was mentioned in the Foundation's resolution foundation:Resolution:License_update.

Sorry if I missed any discussion on this, but unported license is more of a prototype to work on than a finished license, so I thought it might be better to choose US or let each local wikis chose the easiest jurisdiction-specific license for them to deal with.

Tomos 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NO! There should be one global license. Yet ANOTHER reason this is a terrible idea! -24.98.65.137 11:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. 24.98.65.137, when you find an all-in-one, global, free license that would serve the best interest of the Wikimedia project, please tell us. The way I see it, the GFDL isn't providing enough for us, so the CC-by-sa license is needed as well (just my opinion). --Michaeldsuarez 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of CC licenses

It might be stating the obvious, but many CC licenses include the provision that unless agreed mutually in writing, the license is the whole of the agreement. No interpretation or understanding about the license exit.

See, for example, 8.d. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported [3] or 8.e. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 US [4]

So there is a chance, I suppose, that provision on how to properly attribute might turn out to be wrong as an interpretation of the CC license.

I do see that having some guideline would be helpful for downstream users, but we (including the Foundation) certainly do not want to give false impression that certain attritbution practice complies with the license where such certaintly does not exist. Tomos 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have certainty in our interpretation. Considering that wikis are a very unique class of intellectual property, however, it seems pertinent that we offer at least some basic guidance on how we think these licenses actually apply to our content. This is not a new practice for Wikipedia. We have plenty of guidance on how to interpret the GFDL, fair use, and other legal concepts for which we are not considered an actual authority. Kaldari 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, further analysis is necessary before leaping! -24.98.65.137 11:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

When we Vote & my views

when we vote this?

I think that double licensing leaves out many contents licensed under GFDL that might be added to Wikisource, a double licensing is good idea for Wikipedia, but a projects like Wikisource not. Other example, Wikinews, is currently not GFDL, so i have a question,

Is double Licensed good Idea for all projects? I think that might do exceptions for imported contents in some projects like Wikisource: if the content to import is GFDL, could clarify that is not licensed doubly. After all, in Wikisource all the content is imported, for example a something in the public domain can not be licensed under GFDL or CC.

For other side, in Wikinews in spanish we import from a Newspaper with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/es/ , question: this licence remain compatible? If not, then we lose an important resource. Regards Shooke 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only case in which having GFDL content on WikiSource would be a problem is if that content was imported into WikiSource after November 1, 2008. Personally, I'm not aware of any content on WikiSource that has been imported from a GFDL source that was not another Wikimedia project. Do you have any examples? Indeed, this should actually make it easier to import more work into WikiSource since Creative Commons works will now be allowed. Public domain sources will still be treated the same - they will not be licensed at all and will appear with a template notifying the viewer that the work is public domain. I don't have enough knowledge of WikiNews to answer your other question. Also, the vote will be held some time before April according to the WMF. Kaldari 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attribution survey has begun

A survey regarding the attribution issue has been started. Please register your opinion there. Kaldari 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's not available anymore, is it already over? --Elitre 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was just a small "feeler"-survey. Not the official vote or anything. Cbrown1023 talk 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I found some answers on foundation-l. And can't believe my eyes. --Elitre 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding Erik Moeller's message about results and next steps. --Elitre 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-use and attribution clarifications

«If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later»: that's not true, one can choose the GFDL if the content is available under the GFDL, can't he?
Attribution: what does «where possible» mean? I can add a link on a book or a DVD for offline use, but readers would not be able to reach the page or history, while it wouldn't normally be too onerous to list all authors (the real problem is to include a full copy of the GFDL, especially on gadgets such this: see last page). --Nemo 10:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior works

Should we note in our footer something along the lines of (Edits produced prior to %IMPLEMNETATIONDATE% are released solely under the GNU Free Documentation License) for at least some period? xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? If the transition occurs, all past and future edits (with the exception of certain previously published and imported content) will be GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Dragons flight 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, forgot this was also a relicensing effort, I did read over this enwp: recap, and looks like there may be some timelines in play? (e.g. Must be complete by 01AUG2009, may not cover content made between 3NOV2008 and current). We we require a means to not relicense the last few months worth of contributions? (Will this cause document forks?)

The November date affects previously published GFDL-only content that is imported. Normal edits, i.e. original content created by users, will all be relicensed regardless of date. Imported GFDL-only text added between Nov 3rd and the implementation date will probably need to be deleted. Hopefully this is only a tiny precentage of all content. Dragons flight 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies DF! xaosflux ^Talk 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're going to DELETE it all? Why is this needed again? JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how terrible of an idea this is! -24.98.65.137 10:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Please see wikipedia:Special:Log/import. The English Wikipedia imports very little and not very recently. --Michaeldsuarez 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Relicense

Implement a bugtraq:? Is there a bug open to include a specific means to mark future contributions licensing status, as we will be multi licensing by default, but only single licensing certain types of contributions? xaosflux ^Talk 10:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Our goal is that all text content will by CC-BY-SA. Most text will also be GFDL. The current proposal places the responsibility on the reuser to figure out whether a document contains CC-BY-SA-only text or not. Since it only affects imported previously published content, one should be able to identify such imports from the history if they are annotated the way they ought to be. Individual communities can augment this if they wish, for example by adding a CC-BY-SA-only Category tag to articles subject to that restriction. Dragons flight 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison table

I've created a chart comparing GFDL and CC-BY-SA: Licensing update/License comparison. Dragons flight 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I welcome this change. Well done! – Kaihsu 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia import?..

It is known that Wikipedia follows strictly statist and capitalist rules. It means that Wikipedia won't import articles with incompatible license. But if a project with such license allows Wikipedia to do it (the project promise that it won't take the matter to court), will Wikipedia import or not? Caesarion 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

License compatibility needs to be ensured both for us and for the downstream users of Wikimedia content. If you have a specific proposal in mind, I'm sure we'd look at it, but our requirements are pretty firm for importing external content. Dragons flight 08:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If the project can "promise that it won't take the matter to court", then they must have the legal ownership of the text and can put it under an applicable license as well as whatever it is now. But I agree with DF, we should always err on the side of caution and legality – the text on Wikipedia is intended for other use, so "we won't sue Wikipedia" is not good enough. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't "statist and capitalist". It is simply obeying the laws, as they exist. If it doesn't obey the laws, it can be shut down, and many of us won't be able to use the results (and thus would work against the whole point of Wikipedia). Dwheeler 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)