headers
John W Foster | 8 Aug 2008 17:00
Picon

Possible bug in Mediawiki 1.13 RC1

I am trying the latest release and I am getting this error message:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in
the software. The last attempted database query was: 
        (SQL query hidden)
from within function "TitleKey::exactMatch". MySQL returned error "1146:
Table 'wikidb.pw_titlekey' doesn't exist (localhost)".

>From Webmin checking the tables showes that every table has the pw_
prefix which I specified at install time.

Suggestions, anyone?
Thanks!
-  
John Foster
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bennett Haselton | 10 Aug 2008 21:34
Favicon

can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

I read at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 about the 
agreement to modify the FDL to make it compatible with CC-BY-SA, so 
that Wikipedia articles can be republished under CC-BY-SA.  However, 
I was confused about two things:

1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0, 
since they both required derivative works to be published under the 
same license.  Is there a specific part where they're incompatible, 
or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility, 
and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?

2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license 
and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been 
published under an existing license.  All the contributors to 
Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they 
submitted their work.  How can the updated FDL be said to apply to 
that work if the authors didn't agree to it?

I'm writing an article about Google Knol for Slashdot, about how they 
currently allow only CC-BY and CC-NC-BY license options, and arguing 
that they should allow CC-BY-SA as an option as well, allowing people 
to copy content from Wikipedia to Knol.  I argued before when Knol 
was first announced:
http://slashdot.org/articles/08/02/15/177258.shtml
that it would be a good idea to have what would essentially be a fork 
of Wikipedia where articles could be locked against editing and 
signed off on by credentialed experts.

	-Bennett
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Francis Tyers | 10 Aug 2008 21:39

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?


El dom, 10-08-2008 a las 12:34 -0700, Bennett Haselton escribió:
> I read at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 about the 
> agreement to modify the FDL to make it compatible with CC-BY-SA, so 
> that Wikipedia articles can be republished under CC-BY-SA.  However, 
> I was confused about two things:
> 
> 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0, 
> since they both required derivative works to be published under the 
> same license.  Is there a specific part where they're incompatible, 
> or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility, 
> and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
> 
> 2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license 
> and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been 
> published under an existing license.  All the contributors to 
> Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they 
> submitted their work.  How can the updated FDL be said to apply to 
> that work if the authors didn't agree to it?

Doesn't the licence text say "GFDL 1.2 or later" ? 

"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;"

Fran

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 10 Aug 2008 21:52
Picon

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

> 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
> since they both required derivative works to be published under the
> same license.  Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
> or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
> and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?

Indeed, they require both require new versions to be under the same
license as the original, and GFDL isn't the same as CC-BY-SA 3.0, thus
they are incompatible. In spirit, they're pretty similar, but they
have to exactly the same license (up to version numbers, at least) for
them to be interchangeable.

> 2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license
> and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been
> published under an existing license.  All the contributors to
> Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they
> submitted their work.  How can the updated FDL be said to apply to
> that work if the authors didn't agree to it?

Things published on Wikipedia are released under "GFDL v1.2 or later",
so the idea is to make a new version of GFDL which is compatible with
CC-BY-SA.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bennett Haselton | 10 Aug 2008 21:59
Favicon

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

At 12:39 PM 8/10/2008, Francis Tyers wrote:
>How can the updated FDL be said to apply to > that work if the 
>authors didn't agree to it? Doesn't the licence text say "GFDL 1.2 
>or later" ? "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify 
>this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, 
>Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software 
>Foundation;"

Ah OK, that makes sense.

By the way, that means that if authors are submitting content to 
Wikipedia, with the intention that nobody would be able to create a 
derived work from their article and slap "all rights reserved" on it, 
those authors are putting a lot of trust in the Free Software 
Foundation, aren't they?  Since the FSF might someday release a 
version of the FDL which allows third parties to create derivative 
works published under "all rights reserved", like CC-BY does.  (Not 
that the FSF is ever likely to do that, obviously, but it's still 
unusual to have an agreement that one party can unilaterally change 
at any time in the future.)

         -Bennett
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Gerard | 10 Aug 2008 22:04
Picon
Gravatar

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

2008/8/10 Bennett Haselton <bennett@...>:

> By the way, that means that if authors are submitting content to
> Wikipedia, with the intention that nobody would be able to create a
> derived work from their article and slap "all rights reserved" on it,
> those authors are putting a lot of trust in the Free Software
> Foundation, aren't they?

Yep, much as developers are when they put software under "GPL v2 or
later". So far RMS has proven incorruptible.

- d.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Francis Tyers | 10 Aug 2008 22:04

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?


El dom, 10-08-2008 a las 12:59 -0700, Bennett Haselton escribió:
> At 12:39 PM 8/10/2008, Francis Tyers wrote:
> >How can the updated FDL be said to apply to > that work if the 
> >authors didn't agree to it? Doesn't the licence text say "GFDL 1.2 
> >or later" ? "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify 
> >this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, 
> >Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software 
> >Foundation;"
> 
> Ah OK, that makes sense.
> 
> By the way, that means that if authors are submitting content to 
> Wikipedia, with the intention that nobody would be able to create a 
> derived work from their article and slap "all rights reserved" on it, 
> those authors are putting a lot of trust in the Free Software 
> Foundation, aren't they?  Since the FSF might someday release a 
> version of the FDL which allows third parties to create derivative 
> works published under "all rights reserved", like CC-BY does.  (Not 
> that the FSF is ever likely to do that, obviously, but it's still 
> unusual to have an agreement that one party can unilaterally change 
> at any time in the future.)

Yep, we all trust in the FSF :)

Fran

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 10 Aug 2008 22:06
Picon

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

> By the way, that means that if authors are submitting content to
> Wikipedia, with the intention that nobody would be able to create a
> derived work from their article and slap "all rights reserved" on it,
> those authors are putting a lot of trust in the Free Software
> Foundation, aren't they?  Since the FSF might someday release a
> version of the FDL which allows third parties to create derivative
> works published under "all rights reserved", like CC-BY does.  (Not
> that the FSF is ever likely to do that, obviously, but it's still
> unusual to have an agreement that one party can unilaterally change
> at any time in the future.)

The license says:

"The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the
GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns."

Removing the requirement that derived works be released under a free
license would not be "similar in spirit".
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bennett Haselton | 10 Aug 2008 22:12
Favicon

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

At 12:52 PM 8/10/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
> > since they both required derivative works to be published under the
> > same license.  Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
> > or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
> > and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
>
>Indeed, they require both require new versions to be under the same
>license as the original, and GFDL isn't the same as CC-BY-SA 3.0, thus
>they are incompatible. In spirit, they're pretty similar, but they
>have to exactly the same license (up to version numbers, at least) for
>them to be interchangeable.

Thanks.  So just to be clear, does that mean it's still technically 
illegal to copy an article from Wikipedia and republish it under 
CC-BY-SA?  But once an FDL version is released that's compatible with 
CC-BY-SA, it'll no longer be illegal?

(So, for people to start copying Wikipedia content to Knol, 
presumably two things would have to happen -- Knol would have to 
allow CC-BY-SA as a publishing option, and FDL would have to be 
revised to be CC-BY-SA-compatible.)

Since it was announced in December 2007 that they planned to make the 
FDL compatible with CC-BY-SA, does that mean they're still working on 
it?  Are their pro bono lawyers just really careful with things like 
this, so they usually take a long time before coming out with a new 
version of FDL that meets a specific goal?

         -Bennett
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Gerard | 10 Aug 2008 22:18
Picon
Gravatar

Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?

2008/8/10 Bennett Haselton <bennett@...>:

> Thanks.  So just to be clear, does that mean it's still technically
> illegal to copy an article from Wikipedia and republish it under
> CC-BY-SA?  But once an FDL version is released that's compatible with
> CC-BY-SA, it'll no longer be illegal?

That's the present situation, and that's the idea.

> (So, for people to start copying Wikipedia content to Knol,
> presumably two things would have to happen -- Knol would have to
> allow CC-BY-SA as a publishing option, and FDL would have to be
> revised to be CC-BY-SA-compatible.)

Yep.

> Since it was announced in December 2007 that they planned to make the
> FDL compatible with CC-BY-SA, does that mean they're still working on
> it?  Are their pro bono lawyers just really careful with things like
> this, so they usually take a long time before coming out with a new
> version of FDL that meets a specific goal?

They are slooooooow. Because, obviously, they have to be sure they've
gotten it *exactly* right. Wikimedia is by far the largest collection
of GFDL material, but it certainly isn't the only one.

- d.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane