Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
________________________________ From: Michael Bimmler [email protected] To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected] wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller [email protected]:
2008/11/3 Nathan [email protected]:
Referring to:
"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely accurate.
That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly reflect this point.
Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g. images that we receive through [email protected] between November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be told...
Best regards, Michael
Why, quite a few images we receive are handled under GFDL and not CC. Call it unwise but that's the reality for the moment.
M.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde [email protected] wrote:
Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
From: Michael Bimmler [email protected] To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected] wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller [email protected]:
2008/11/3 Nathan [email protected]:
Referring to:
"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely accurate.
That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly reflect this point.
Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g. images that we receive through [email protected] between November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be told...
Best regards, Michael
-- Michael Bimmler [email protected]
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Right now we have a massive mix-and-match licensing scheme when it comes to images.
Regardless of whether any of them are affected by this, we will still have a massive variety of image licenses after any migration takes places.
At the moment, I think the focus needs to be sorting out the text license, and not let ourselves get too hung up on image rights, which are going to be a mess regardless.
-Robert Rohde
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Michael Bimmler [email protected] wrote:
Why, quite a few images we receive are handled under GFDL and not CC. Call it unwise but that's the reality for the moment.
M.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde [email protected] wrote:
Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
From: Michael Bimmler [email protected] To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected] wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller [email protected]:
2008/11/3 Nathan [email protected]:
Referring to:
"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely accurate.
That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly reflect this point.
Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g. images that we receive through [email protected] between November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be told...
Best regards, Michael
-- Michael Bimmler [email protected]
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Michael Bimmler [email protected]
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/3 Geoffrey Plourde [email protected]:
Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
It's not wise to license an encyclopaedia under a documentation license either, we still do it (because there wasn't a good alternative when the decision was made, as I understand it).