On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM, robert_horning(a)netzero.net
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
I think the reason "we have no acceptable
method" of dual-licensing is just because you aren't thinking big enough on it.
I don't see any sort of legal reason why you have to obligate any edit on the wiki
with any sort of license, including the GFDL, other convention and project/website policy.
On this basis, requiring users to add contributions with dual-licenses is identical in
nature to requiring just the GFDL alone anyway. It really is the same thing.
We don't HAVE to obligate an edit with any particular license, but we
do it anyway. Take a look at the copyright notice on the edit page.
Take a look at the page footer where it says "All text is released
under the GFDL". Take a look at [[Wikibooks:Copyrights]]. Our users
have a strong reason to believe that their contributions are released
under the GFDL, and that text is available for use and reuse under the
GFDL. Adding an "Oh wait, this might not be true" clause makes it
harder for everybody.
It gets harder for content reusers to apply our material, because they
have to figure out what the individual license stipulations on each
book are. It makes it harder for contributors, because they have to
figure out what license they are agreeing to before they are even
allowed to make an edit. We could change the copyright notice to say
"All text is released under the GFDL, except for some books where
additional license terms are in effect. Use at your own risk", but
that doesn't help anybody.
Multi licensing is nice, and I appreciate the idealism behind it.
However, the reality is that there are just too many problems with it.
If we "think big" about this, we also have to seriously look at the
big problems, not just the big benefits.
All it would take is for the website policy to permit
dual-licensing of the content, and to enforce the concept that any dual-licensed content
that is clearly marked as such would also have to be dual-licensed. The Scratch wikibook
is one example of a dual-licensed content that IMHO is marked... perhaps even to an
extreme point as I've put the dual licensing "warning" on nearly ever page
of the book. If site policy is such that "forking" isn't permitted *within*
the website in such cases to be GFDL-only, I fail to see what the real problem is here.
The real problem, even if we change our disclaimers and put notices on
every page of every multi-licensed book is that we lack consistency.
We start asking people to wade through our licensing problems. It gets
harder for new authors to create a book because they have to select a
license (or a set of licenses) and they have to mark pages with
notices to the effect. It gets harder for new contributors, because
they have to be aware of the individual licensing requirements before
they can contribute. It gets harder for content reusers because they
have to know and understand all the licensing ramifications of each
individual book. It's definitely going to make things harder on our
patrollers and our admins who are going to be tasked with enforcing a
myriad of licenses.
In short, this makes everything harder for everybody, which is the
exact opposite of the trend we've been pursuing till now. We need to
be making things easier, make it quicker for new contributors to get
acclimated, not the opposite.
BTW, Andrew, this still gives an "even
landscape" for content, as all of it is still available under the GFDL under these
sorts of guidelines. I accept that the GFDL is one of the licenses that ought to be
mandatory. If you inadvertently take some dual-licensed content and act as if the GFDL is
the only license, you haven't broken copyright. I agree that the dual-licensed
content issue is a bit more complicated in terms of administration, but I don't think
it is really all that much more complicated.
Any more complicated really should be unacceptable. Creating a
situation where people can "inadvertently" make any legally binding
decision that they are not aware of beforehand seems like a bad idea
for us. We're asking people to become experts in this kind of stuff,
when we can't seem to agree on the fundamentals of it ourselves. It's
like opening pandora's box and saying that our contributors need to
deal with the consequences.
This is also a huge difference between Wikibooks and
Wikipedia. On the 'pedia, it is intended to be one continuous publication, where an
individual article having different licensing terms from the rest of the "book"
would prove to be unworkable. In this case with Wikibooks, individual books can be
unitized and treated somewhat independently.
This is one of the points that I do like, and the autonomy of books is
something I've been working towards myself. We give authors plenty of
rope when they create a new book, but adding ambiguous licensing
requirements to the mix just gives them some creative ways to hang
themselves with it.
We have a collection of individual books within a structurally sound
and consistent community framework. Take away the consistency and the
structural soundness, and books won't just be independent: They will
be alone and abandoned.
I'm just afraid that this is one more way that
Wikibooks is being sterilized and unduely straight-jacketed with a policy that excludes
content rather than trying to find a way to accommodate such creative expressions in a
fashion that can both help the contributors as well as allow Wikibooks to grow. Far too
much content has been tossed overboard with Wikibooks and driving away far too many users.
Please don't do it again!
I appreciate the historical perspective too, but I see the exact
opposite outcome that you are hoping for. Adding undue complexity to
our licensing scheme could put a chill on our entire project,
disheartening some of our existing members and scaring away new ones.
Our growth and stability are too tenuous right now to be making all
sorts of exploratory changes to our basic formulation. I'm sorry to be
a party pooper here, but I'm trying to be very realistic.
--Andrew Whitworth