Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but could someone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration to CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian (and I guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews? Wasn't the CC-BY used by the older Wikinewses a deliberate decision to give Wikinews an extra opennes and connectivity with other news outlets (I personally see a bigger chance for some newsproducer agreeing to license their work under either CC-BY or less likely CC-BY-SA than GFDL or even GFDL with a possible migration)? Is the current license compatible with Wikipedia (I am thinking that the added migration clause makes the project incompatible with GFDL sites that are not also double licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later)?
Thanks, Bence Damokos
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis
2008/10/22 Bence Damokos [email protected]:
Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but could someone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration to CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian (and I guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews?
That must be a misunderstanding. All Wikinews editions should continue to be set up with CC-BY, as per that project's licensing policy.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
2008/10/22 Bence Damokos [email protected]:
Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but
could
someone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration to CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian
(and
I guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews?
That must be a misunderstanding. All Wikinews editions should continue to be set up with CC-BY, as per that project's licensing policy.
Could you please look at the footer of hu.wikinews.org ; if it is a misunderstanding, I would be really glad, but on the other hand all the older contributions would have to be sorted out (I believe the hu.wikinews started in the incubator, which if I recall correctly is under GFDL; than once set up it went to this strange construction of GFDL+; and now it should go back to CC-BY if what you say is right). Alternatively , if the newer contributions could be under the CC-BY license (as the reusability of old news and some parts of the interface or templates is not really a must; the newer articles could be under the correct license without interfering with the older ones).
Thanks, Bence Damokos
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/10/22 Bence Damokos [email protected]:
Could you please look at the footer of hu.wikinews.org ; if it is a misunderstanding, I would be really glad, but on the other hand all the older contributions would have to be sorted out
We can't really help you decide whether you are comfortable to switch license, but I assume with a small community like hu.wikinews.org it should be relatively easy to find consensus, and things can always be removed if individual people object later. If I'm not mistaken the licensing messages live outside the MediaWiki: namespace so can only be changed by a developer. When you're ready to do so, please file a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org to change the licensing info.
Thanks, Erik
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
2008/10/22 Bence Damokos [email protected]:
Could you please look at the footer of hu.wikinews.org ; if it is a misunderstanding, I would be really glad, but on the other hand all the older contributions would have to be sorted out
We can't really help you decide whether you are comfortable to switch license, but I assume with a small community like hu.wikinews.org it should be relatively easy to find consensus, and things can always be removed if individual people object later. If I'm not mistaken the licensing messages live outside the MediaWiki: namespace so can only be changed by a developer. When you're ready to do so, please file a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org to change the licensing info.
Thank you, I will bring up the issue with the community. Could you, or someone on the list make a recommendation, what would be the ideal licence (e.g. CC-BY 2.5; 3.0; 2.5 and later; CC-BY-SA) to keep compatibility with the other Wikinewses and to have a desirable license that can be promoted for adoption by other news outlets to allow cooperation.
Best regards, Bence
Thanks, Erik
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/10/22 Bence Damokos [email protected]:
Could you, or someone on the list make a recommendation, what would be the ideal licence (e.g. CC-BY 2.5; 3.0; 2.5 and later; CC-BY-SA)
The standard license used by Wikinews is CC-BY 2.5, in the absence of any community decisions to a different effect.
If I'm not mistaken the licensing messages live outside the MediaWiki: namespace so can only be changed by a developer. When you're ready to do so, please file a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org to change the licensing info.
I believe everything is in the MediaWiki namespace these days.
The notice on edit pages is MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2. The notice at the bottom of each page is MediaWiki:Copyright.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
If I'm not mistaken the licensing messages live outside the MediaWiki: namespace so can only be changed by a developer. When you're ready to do so, please file a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org to change the licensing info.
I believe everything is in the MediaWiki namespace these days.
The notice on edit pages is MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2. The notice at the bottom of each page is MediaWiki:Copyright.
Thanks. It seems the only other Wikinews affected is the Czech one (cs.wikinews.org ).
Hi, I would like to give a little update on the licencing status of the Hungarian Wikinews as it has come up before on this list.
As some of you may know by following this mailing list that the Hungarian Wikinews was set up -- probably by accident -- with the "WMF licensing resolution for new wikis" licence (GFDL with the possibility of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0). Although the error was noticed, the small wikinews community at the time opted to accept the situation as-is.
Following the licence update voting, someone has updated the licence of the Hungarian Wikinews to CC-BY 2.5 a couple of weeks ago (in the server configurations, most probably), in effect retroactively relicensing the GFDL content to CC-BY 2.5.
This event, and the deadlines set in GFDL 1.3 has prompted the community to resolve the licensing issue by a vote[1] on the future copyright status of the Hungarian Wikinews, with the result that the project should swich to CC BY 3.0 on August 1st.
The content created before August 1 will in theory remain under the GFDL (or the CC BY SA 3.0 if the WMF decides to switch) under the above mentioned licensing resolution for new wikis.
I will create a bugzilla request but I hope that some dev might be reading this list and updates the necessary server settings to reflect these results faster than I learn to navigate Bugzilla. :)
Thank you, Bence Damokos
Hello,
A different question on the same topic,
However I completely support the change to cc-by-sa-3.0, I'm wondering if its possible to change the cc-by-2.5 license into a cc-by-sa-3.0 license without having to deal with big problems, when I read the license I find this:
"This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You."
Wouldn't that mean that we must organize a big vote on that wiki that it will adapt a new license, or even worse there are also ip users that released there rights under that license.
I'm not completely sure how I must see this.
Best regards,
Huib