Dariusz Siedlecki | 1 Aug 21:17 2005
Picon

Licensing Wikinews

The international language editions of Wikinews are still in beta, but
some of the other language version have already moved one step closer
to getting out of that state - they got a license. Now... This is not
a good thing.

The Spanish, Serbian and Romanian editions are all licensed under the
GNU FDL, and the Japanese edition is licensed under CC-By. That's due
to the nature of the Japanese law, which, according to some juristic
analysis, doesn't allow to release content into the public domain.
That's not such a big problem - first of all, it might be possible to
relicense the content under CC-By-SA, or simply ask the contributors
to relicense it - since this is a new project, there aren't too many
people to ask.

But, back to the topic. The 2.5 Creative Commons licenses allow to
give the attribution NOT to every author of the article, but to the
whole project - just check 4(b) of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode (same applies to
every other CC license).

This allows us to finally license our content under the CC-Wiki
(that's what we could call CC-By-SA 2.5) license - now the basic
questions are:

1) Do we need to license it right now?
2) Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other license, like
GFDL or CC-By, for example?
3) What should we do about the Wikinews projects which already have a
license choosed?

(Continue reading)

Amgine | 3 Aug 19:39 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
of the entire project, not any single edition.

As to the suggested license, CC-by-sa, the primary argument against that
license in previous versions was the requirement for attribution to all
contributors by downstream content reusers. If version 2.5 allows
attribution to the originating project then I see no reason not to adopt
that license.

So to answer your questions:

> 1) Do we need to license it right now?

Yes, the longer we wait the more content there is to relicense, and the
larger the likelihood of argument and dispute over relicensing.

> 2) Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other license, like
GFDL or CC-By, for example?

As far as I am concerned, the CC-by-sa 2.5 appears to answer all the
previously-raised concerns and has the added benefit of an active
community developing and maintaining the licensure.

> 3) What should we do about the Wikinews projects which already have a
license choosed?

It should be gently pointed out to them that it is not something they
(Continue reading)

Dave Smith | 3 Aug 19:58 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

unsubscribe

On 8/3/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote:
As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
of the entire project, not any single edition.

As to the suggested license, CC-by-sa, the primary argument against that
license in previous versions was the requirement for attribution to all
contributors by downstream content reusers. If version 2.5 allows
attribution to the originating project then I see no reason not to adopt
that license.

So to answer your questions:

> 1) Do we need to license it right now?

Yes, the longer we wait the more content there is to relicense, and the
larger the likelihood of argument and dispute over relicensing.

> 2) Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other license, like
GFDL or CC-By, for example?

As far as I am concerned, the CC-by-sa 2.5 appears to answer all the
previously-raised concerns and has the added benefit of an active
community developing and maintaining the licensure.

> 3) What should we do about the Wikinews projects which already have a
license choosed?

It should be gently pointed out to them that it is not something they
can actually do, and ask them to bring their input to this discussion?
I'm not sure how to bring it up without causing some level of conflict,
but they might be asked how they decided they *could* change the license
without asking the Foundation.

Amgine
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Dave Smith | 3 Aug 19:57 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

unsubscrube

 
On 8/3/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote:
As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
of the entire project, not any single edition.

As to the suggested license, CC-by-sa, the primary argument against that
license in previous versions was the requirement for attribution to all
contributors by downstream content reusers. If version 2.5 allows
attribution to the originating project then I see no reason not to adopt
that license.

So to answer your questions:

> 1) Do we need to license it right now?

Yes, the longer we wait the more content there is to relicense, and the
larger the likelihood of argument and dispute over relicensing.

> 2) Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other license, like
GFDL or CC-By, for example?

As far as I am concerned, the CC-by-sa 2.5 appears to answer all the
previously-raised concerns and has the added benefit of an active
community developing and maintaining the licensure.

> 3) What should we do about the Wikinews projects which already have a
license choosed?

It should be gently pointed out to them that it is not something they
can actually do, and ask them to bring their input to this discussion?
I'm not sure how to bring it up without causing some level of conflict,
but they might be asked how they decided they *could* change the license
without asking the Foundation.

Amgine
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Dariusz Siedlecki | 3 Aug 21:17 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

> On 8/3/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote: 
> > As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
> > editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
> > choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
> > as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
> > of the entire project, not any single edition.

Yes, but Jimbo wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this topic. As to
the questions I raised, I too think that CC-By-SA will be the best,
and we need to relicense the content ASAP.

--

-- 
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
Ascander | 3 Aug 23:21 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

In the case of the Spanish Wikinews, I don't think there was a choice of licence. By some reason, it was created with the GFDL licence and we notice that we had a different licence several months after the Creation. I don't think we want to stick to a specific licence. We will prefer to use the same licence that the other Wikinews projects.

Ascánder

On 8/3/05, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote:
> > As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
> > editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
> > choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
> > as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
> > of the entire project, not any single edition.

Yes, but Jimbo wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this topic. As to
the questions I raised, I too think that CC-By-SA will be the best,
and we need to relicense the content ASAP.

--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
David Speakman | 4 Aug 04:48 2005

RE: Licensing Wikinews

Uh - you can't "re-license" public domain property. Once it's public domain
- it's always public domain.

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-382-1459

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> Wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dariusz Siedlecki
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:17 PM
> To: Wikinews mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Licensing Wikinews
> 
> 
> > On 8/3/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote:
> > > As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews 
> > > editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only 
> group which 
> > > can choose a license, and what I understood was they 
> would like the 
> > > project as a whole to select a license which is most 
> compatible with 
> > > the goals of the entire project, not any single edition.
> 
> Yes, but Jimbo wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this 
> topic. As to the questions I raised, I too think that 
> CC-By-SA will be the best, and we need to relicense the content ASAP.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org 
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> 
Amgine | 4 Aug 05:23 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

David Speakman wrote:

>Uh - you can't "re-license" public domain property. Once it's public domain
>- it's always public domain.
>
>--
>David Speakman
>

<grin> Presuming it has adequately been licensed as PD, a point Mr.
Lessig feels Wikinews has not done. But I understand your point; we
would need to mark all current articles as licensed under PD - a fair
amount of work for someone(s) and more the longer we delay.

Amgine
Robin Shannon | 4 Aug 09:01 2005
Picon

Re: Licensing Wikinews

Am i just dreaming, or was there origanaly a concensus that we would
be moving toward cc-by rather than cc-by-sa? I remeber arguments about
trying to encourage ppl to reuse our stuff and whatnot...

paz y amor,
-rjs.

On 8/4/05, Amgine <amgine <at> saewyc.net> wrote:
> David Speakman wrote:
> 
> >Uh - you can't "re-license" public domain property. Once it's public
> domain
> >- it's always public domain.
> >
> >--
> >David Speakman
> >
> 
> <grin> Presuming it has adequately been licensed as PD, a point Mr.
> Lessig feels Wikinews has not done. But I understand your point; we
> would need to mark all current articles as licensed under PD - a fair
> amount of work for someone(s) and more the longer we delay.
> 
> Amgine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l <at> Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> 

--

-- 
hit me: <robin.shannon.id.au>
jab me: <robin.shannon <at> jabber.org.au>

upgrade to ubuntu linux: <http://www.spreadubuntu.org/>
Amgine | 4 Aug 20:45 2005
Picon

Re: Re: Licensing Wikinews

Robin Shannon wrote:

>Am i just dreaming, or was there origanaly a concensus that we would
>be moving toward cc-by rather than cc-by-sa? I remeber arguments about
>trying to encourage ppl to reuse our stuff and whatnot...
>
>paz y amor,
>-rjs.
>

I think you're right. I'll look in the wikinews-l archives for the
earlier discussions.

Amgine

Gmane