Relicensing update on our wiki
0 views
Skip to first unread message
kotra
Jul 7, 2009, 9:36:48 PM7/7/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
Hi all. This email is long, so here's the tl;dr version: we have until
August 1 to update our license to CC-BY-SA to remain compatible with
Wikipedia and many other wikis and works. Please comment.
As you may be aware, GFDL (the Gnu Free Documentation License) is what
all contributions on our wiki are currently licensed under. It allows
people to use everything we add to the wiki for any purpose as long as
the author is attributed and all derivative works use the same license
(GFDL). GFDL, however, was intended for software documentation, not
general-purpose works. Another license, the CC-BY-SA license, is
basically identical to GFDL, but it is intended for general-purpose
works, and has much greater usage. GFDL has a clause in it that
specifically allows us to switch licenses to CC-BY-SA if we choose to
do so, but only during a window of time that ends on August 1 (3 weeks
from now).
Wikipedia, along with most other Wikimedia-hosted wikis, has made this
change. If we are to remain compatible with them (allowing the copying
of content from, for example, Wikipedia to our wiki and vice versa),
we'll have to switch too, and before August 1.
Are there any objections/agreements/questions to switching our license
to CC-BY-SA? Please comment at http://pdx.wiki.org/Licensing_update .
Pertinent links:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
kotra
August 1 to update our license to CC-BY-SA to remain compatible with
Wikipedia and many other wikis and works. Please comment.
As you may be aware, GFDL (the Gnu Free Documentation License) is what
all contributions on our wiki are currently licensed under. It allows
people to use everything we add to the wiki for any purpose as long as
the author is attributed and all derivative works use the same license
(GFDL). GFDL, however, was intended for software documentation, not
general-purpose works. Another license, the CC-BY-SA license, is
basically identical to GFDL, but it is intended for general-purpose
works, and has much greater usage. GFDL has a clause in it that
specifically allows us to switch licenses to CC-BY-SA if we choose to
do so, but only during a window of time that ends on August 1 (3 weeks
from now).
Wikipedia, along with most other Wikimedia-hosted wikis, has made this
change. If we are to remain compatible with them (allowing the copying
of content from, for example, Wikipedia to our wiki and vice versa),
we'll have to switch too, and before August 1.
Are there any objections/agreements/questions to switching our license
to CC-BY-SA? Please comment at http://pdx.wiki.org/Licensing_update .
Pertinent links:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
kotra
Steven Walling
Jul 7, 2009, 9:40:06 PM7/7/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
I'm all for migration. I completely forgot about the possibility for our own wiki!
Steven Walling
Steven Walling
Pete Forsyth
Jul 8, 2009, 1:11:08 AM7/8/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for being so on top of it Kotra -- I didn't think about that, either!
As long as we're revisiting licensing, I have another adjustment I'd
very much like to make: I believe that user space and talk page
content should default to full copyright by the contributor.
It has always struck me as a rather strange thing to do, to require
people to consent to have their word republished in any number of
ways, as a prerequisite to simply participating in a discussion.
I know the Mediawiki software doesn't provide an easy way to
communicate that kind of licensing distinction, but I'm sure we could
sort that part out.
Any thoughts on the matter?
-Pete
As long as we're revisiting licensing, I have another adjustment I'd
very much like to make: I believe that user space and talk page
content should default to full copyright by the contributor.
It has always struck me as a rather strange thing to do, to require
people to consent to have their word republished in any number of
ways, as a prerequisite to simply participating in a discussion.
I know the Mediawiki software doesn't provide an easy way to
communicate that kind of licensing distinction, but I'm sure we could
sort that part out.
Any thoughts on the matter?
-Pete
kotra
Jul 8, 2009, 3:26:46 AM7/8/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
That's an interesting point, Pete... however, I'm wondering if full
copyright would cause some problems. For example, how could you
archive or refactor a talk page discussion? Archiving involves making
a copy of a work, and refactoring (like, to modify formatting of text
for display reasons) would be modifying a work. One would have to get
permission from all original editors every time one wanted to do that
sort of thing. Also, you couldn't collaboratively work on something in
the talk or user space and then move it to the main space, unless each
author moved their part individually or otherwise gave permission.
Seems like it would stifle collaboration unless all collaboration was
required to be done in the main space.
Thinking about the "how", I can't think of any way mediawiki could do
this either, except having in the licensing info on all pages say
something like "main space is CC-BY-SA 3.0, all other spaces are
normal copyright". I suppose that's sufficient as long as it's clearly
explained.
kotra
On Jul 7, 10:11 pm, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for being so on top of it Kotra -- I didn't think about that, either!
>
> As long as we're revisiting licensing, I have another adjustment I'd
> very much like to make: I believe that user space and talk page
> content should default to full copyright by the contributor.
>
> It has always struck me as a rather strange thing to do, to require
> people to consent to have their word republished in any number of
> ways, as a prerequisite to simply participating in a discussion.
>
> I know the Mediawiki software doesn't provide an easy way to
> communicate that kind of licensing distinction, but I'm sure we could
> sort that part out.
>
> Any thoughts on the matter?
>
> -Pete
>
copyright would cause some problems. For example, how could you
archive or refactor a talk page discussion? Archiving involves making
a copy of a work, and refactoring (like, to modify formatting of text
for display reasons) would be modifying a work. One would have to get
permission from all original editors every time one wanted to do that
sort of thing. Also, you couldn't collaboratively work on something in
the talk or user space and then move it to the main space, unless each
author moved their part individually or otherwise gave permission.
Seems like it would stifle collaboration unless all collaboration was
required to be done in the main space.
Thinking about the "how", I can't think of any way mediawiki could do
this either, except having in the licensing info on all pages say
something like "main space is CC-BY-SA 3.0, all other spaces are
normal copyright". I suppose that's sufficient as long as it's clearly
explained.
kotra
On Jul 7, 10:11 pm, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for being so on top of it Kotra -- I didn't think about that, either!
>
> As long as we're revisiting licensing, I have another adjustment I'd
> very much like to make: I believe that user space and talk page
> content should default to full copyright by the contributor.
>
> It has always struck me as a rather strange thing to do, to require
> people to consent to have their word republished in any number of
> ways, as a prerequisite to simply participating in a discussion.
>
> I know the Mediawiki software doesn't provide an easy way to
> communicate that kind of licensing distinction, but I'm sure we could
> sort that part out.
>
> Any thoughts on the matter?
>
> -Pete
>
Steven Walling
Jul 8, 2009, 3:40:40 AM7/8/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
The how problem is pretty thorny, since there's really no way to set a
specific license for a namespace. Also, from my perspective, talk pages are
a collaborative space, not one you own. By definition, they're meant to
contain other people's words first and foremost, so it doesn't make sense to
me to say that I should own other's words in my talk page. Also, user pages
are most definitely still collaborative too, and I personally think the same
free license incentive to help eachother out applies to user pages.
In short, it looks kind of hard, and it's more important a question for
larger sites like Wikipedia. While I agree in principle with you Pete, I
don't think we're going to have people refusing to work on the wiki because
user space is Creative Commons.
More important than licensing even, I think it's time we pushed to get a
logo for the group, and maybe even skin the site with a better
out-of-the-box skin (I have resources for this). Maybe a discussion of our
wiki (and its license) should be the next WikiWednesday's agenda?
Steven
kotra
Jul 8, 2009, 12:57:52 PM7/8/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
About the skin, I had committed in the June meeting to do this, but
I've been bad and haven't done it yet. I still plan on having
something for people to look at and discuss by the next meeting,
unless you want to take a whack at it yourself. I was thinking a sort
of clean, simple layout that would take cues from the logo in terms of
coral pink highlights and curved forms. Concerning the logo, do you
mean something different from the current rose-type logo? I was
thinking the name of our wiki would be good to have in the logo
("PWWW", or "Portland Wiki Wednesday Wiki", or "pdx.wiki.org");
otherwise, I sort of like the current logo.
Unfortunately, we can't discuss the GFDL-to-CC thing in the next
meeting, because that will be too late. The last day we can legally
make the switch is August 1, and the next meeting is August 5.
kotra
I've been bad and haven't done it yet. I still plan on having
something for people to look at and discuss by the next meeting,
unless you want to take a whack at it yourself. I was thinking a sort
of clean, simple layout that would take cues from the logo in terms of
coral pink highlights and curved forms. Concerning the logo, do you
mean something different from the current rose-type logo? I was
thinking the name of our wiki would be good to have in the logo
("PWWW", or "Portland Wiki Wednesday Wiki", or "pdx.wiki.org");
otherwise, I sort of like the current logo.
Unfortunately, we can't discuss the GFDL-to-CC thing in the next
meeting, because that will be too late. The last day we can legally
make the switch is August 1, and the next meeting is August 5.
kotra
Pete Forsyth
Jul 8, 2009, 1:12:02 PM7/8/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Kotra, you make an excellent point about refactoring, archiving etc.
(some more detailed response below.) Steven, you too -- though we're
not quite talking about the same things re: user space.
Anyway, due to the obvious thorniness and the looming deadline, let me
drop this matter for the time being, and instead enthusiastically
endorse moving from GFDL to CC-BY-SA while we have the opportunity.
-Pete
PS: back to talk pages, for the sake of a longer term discussion.
Regarding Kotra's point about archiving and refactoring: I believe
these activities are based on trust anyway, and full copyright
preserves that spirit. For instance, if Alice refactors Billy's
comment in a way that doesn't capture his intent, Billy should have
the right and the final say to re-refactor it, or remove the comment
altogether. If he retained full copyright over his words, that would
clearly protect that right.
This is basically how copyright has worked for quite some time. If a
friend sends me a photo, and I think it would look awesome on my web
site, I might publish it there; if she objects, I have the obligation
to take it down. My relationship with the person, my familiarity with
her intent, and common sense properly constrain whether I put it up to
begin with, because having her request that I take it down is
something I'd rather avoid contending with if I can avoid it.
(some more detailed response below.) Steven, you too -- though we're
not quite talking about the same things re: user space.
Anyway, due to the obvious thorniness and the looming deadline, let me
drop this matter for the time being, and instead enthusiastically
endorse moving from GFDL to CC-BY-SA while we have the opportunity.
-Pete
PS: back to talk pages, for the sake of a longer term discussion.
Regarding Kotra's point about archiving and refactoring: I believe
these activities are based on trust anyway, and full copyright
preserves that spirit. For instance, if Alice refactors Billy's
comment in a way that doesn't capture his intent, Billy should have
the right and the final say to re-refactor it, or remove the comment
altogether. If he retained full copyright over his words, that would
clearly protect that right.
This is basically how copyright has worked for quite some time. If a
friend sends me a photo, and I think it would look awesome on my web
site, I might publish it there; if she objects, I have the obligation
to take it down. My relationship with the person, my familiarity with
her intent, and common sense properly constrain whether I put it up to
begin with, because having her request that I take it down is
something I'd rather avoid contending with if I can avoid it.
David Galiel
Jul 8, 2009, 1:28:13 PM7/8/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
It would be interesting & useful to capture this separate conversation (about rights in collaborative spaces) on the wiki itself - perhaps in the talk page for the Licensing page.
Peace,
David Galiel
New Media Consultant
---
david....@gmail.com
617.803.6909
http://galiel.com/
---
Peace,
David Galiel
New Media Consultant
---
david....@gmail.com
617.803.6909
http://galiel.com/
---
Pete Forsyth
Jul 8, 2009, 3:34:42 PM7/8/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
David, that's a good idea about moving the longer-term discussion to
the wiki. What's your opinion on the more immediate issue -- shifting
the main license to CC-BY-SA within the Aug. 1 window?
the wiki. What's your opinion on the more immediate issue -- shifting
the main license to CC-BY-SA within the Aug. 1 window?
Kotra, what do you think about adding a big, bold note about this
discussion at the top of pdx.wiki.org? Are you familiar enough with
the technicalities to know how many people's consent we'd need, and
how we should have them express it?
Off the top of my head, here are the people who have been somewhat
active -- it might be best to just seek them out directly.
Dave Myers
Brandon CS Sanders
Shelley Sanders
Mark Dilley
Katr
Kotra
Pete (me)
Steven Walling
Ward (?)
Could poke through recent changes and
http://pdx.wiki.org/Special:Listusers to round out the list...
-Pete
kotra
Jul 10, 2009, 7:12:40 PM7/10/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
Agree with David and Pete about continuing this discussion on-wiki, so
I've gone ahead and copied the entire thread there:
http://pdx.wiki.org/Talk:Licensing_update . I hope this is ok with
everyone (this may be one of those situations Pete referred to when
people copy and modify technically copyrighted content without
permission but it's assumed nobody has a problem with it, and if they
do, can be rectified by reverting).
Anyway, if nobody objects, let's continue this useful discussion
there.
kotra
> Could poke through recent changes andhttp://pdx.wiki.org/Special:Listusersto round out the list...
>
> -Pete
I've gone ahead and copied the entire thread there:
http://pdx.wiki.org/Talk:Licensing_update . I hope this is ok with
everyone (this may be one of those situations Pete referred to when
people copy and modify technically copyrighted content without
permission but it's assumed nobody has a problem with it, and if they
do, can be rectified by reverting).
Anyway, if nobody objects, let's continue this useful discussion
there.
kotra
>
> -Pete
Pete Forsyth
Jul 20, 2009, 4:30:57 PM7/20/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
So where are we at on re-licensing before the August 1 deadline?
-Pete
Steven Walling
Jul 20, 2009, 4:35:45 PM7/20/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
I think the consensus so far is to make the switch.
Steven
Pete Forsyth
Jul 20, 2009, 4:38:23 PM7/20/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
I think so too -- but I'm not sure whether "general consensus" meets the technical legal requirements for switching. And I"m not sure what specific action(s) must be taken before 8/1. I think we oughtta find out! Kotra, do you know?
By the way guys, great job with the logo! I like it.
-Pete
Pete Forsyth
Jul 20, 2009, 4:46:45 PM7/20/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
kotra
Jul 20, 2009, 6:16:01 PM7/20/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
About the number of participants required, I've commented on this on
the wiki a few days back: http://pdx.wiki.org/Talk:Licensing_update#Arbitrary_break
I recently added some more thoughts on the subject, might be better to
discuss there instead of here.
I'll start a section there on what are the specific actions to be
taken.
kotra
the wiki a few days back: http://pdx.wiki.org/Talk:Licensing_update#Arbitrary_break
I recently added some more thoughts on the subject, might be better to
discuss there instead of here.
I'll start a section there on what are the specific actions to be
taken.
kotra
kotra
Jul 28, 2009, 3:18:35 PM7/28/09
to PortlandWikiWednesday
Just to keep everyone informed, the re-licensing has now been
completed. All text on our wiki is now licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0
license (media files may be licensed differently, same as Wikimedia
projects do). If you're curious, check out http://pdx.wiki.org/PdxWikiWednesday:Copyrights
, which has been rewritten to reflect the new change. Thanks to all
who gave their input!
kotra
completed. All text on our wiki is now licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0
license (media files may be licensed differently, same as Wikimedia
projects do). If you're curious, check out http://pdx.wiki.org/PdxWikiWednesday:Copyrights
, which has been rewritten to reflect the new change. Thanks to all
who gave their input!
kotra
Pete Forsyth
Jul 28, 2009, 3:26:56 PM7/28/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Kotra!
Sorry for my delayed response on your last message. I emailed Shelley seeking her input, but haven't heard back. But I'm sure it's fine.
I really appreciate your being so persistent on this important issue!
-Pete
Brandon CS Sanders
Jul 28, 2009, 5:00:04 PM7/28/09
to pdx...@googlegroups.com, Shelley Sanders
Shelley and I are both fine with the relicensing :-) Keep up the great work.
Brandon Sanders
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages