No subject

Mon Jan 19 21:31:31 UTC 2009

licensing ... for as long as possible for each article".  That
clarifies that we believe this is a per-article license and impact,
and will help reusers find [the latest] GFDL revision[s]of an article.

2. "to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in this
manner, but allow CC-BY-SA-only content from third parties (However,
GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed)"
Drop the "However," from the parenthetical.

3. "to inform re-users that content which includes imported
CC-BY-SA-only information cannot be used under the GFDL."
This is irresponsible if it does not provide a way for editors to note
that they are importing CC-BY-SA information.  I would /like/ this to
say "to inform re-users when content includes imported CC-BY-SA-only
information, that it cannot be used under the GFDL".  I think that
Wikipedia as a site and tool for collaboration should take more
responsibility for identifying when this has taken place -- just as we
currently take responsibility for helping uploaders avoid violating
copyright through laziness by asking detailed questions on commons and
by highlighting on every page that they are certifying by editing that
their contributions are available under a certain license (and that
they had the right to so license them).

And some from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and=
_Answers#Dual_licensing

4. "This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing
history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how
to determine that."
Change this to "under the GFDL or other licenses" and link to a page
explaining how multiple licensing works, how the default license for
new edits works (the edit itself is available under both by-sa and the
gfdl; the resulting article is available under by-sa and any other
license compatible with the licensing of each non-minor edit in its
history), and where many editors note the other licenses under which
they provide their edits (PD, &c)  Is there a proposed target page for
that link?  Will it be on meta?

5. "It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an
article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes =96 dual licensing should not be
a burden on editors."
This certainly should be a burden on editors insofar as one should
expressly indicate when material is being imported from a CC-BY-SA
source.  This comment requires much more than a statement.  If there
is no simple way for one to do this, it should be touted less boldly.
If there is a simple way, we should define it -- it seems to me this
will require some work and programming over time.

6. "What about merging in GFDL-only content?  While merging GFDL-only
text into WikiMedia projects will ultimately no longer be possible, we
propose to continue..."
We need not dodge the question; be proud of the answer.  "GFDL-only
content can no longer be merged into Wikimedia projects.  We plan to
move to CC-BY-SA as the primary license for text.  We propose to
continue..."

7. "How will re-users determine whether or not an article is available
under GFDL?"
Update the answer to reflect a more specific solution to the above.
"Look at every edit summary that may include a hyperlink or implied
hyperlink, and follow every reference or footnote link to see whether
the source is a site licensed under cc-sa; if it is, come back and
check the diff to see whether this is a referential cite for
verification of the data stated, or a source site, whose material has
been included substantially intact, carrying with it implied
derivation." is not an ideal answer...

SJ

* I seem to think that the latest-revision of articles will become
CC-SA-only more quickly than most do - 2 years max before that
includes most common articles.  I think it will happen via bot-enabled
content additions drawing from an aggregate database of materials
which have themselves included CC-SA works in the mix.  That sort of
automated update can touch a large fraction of all articles, and they
happen with some regularity.  But whether or not this is the case, I
think we could make a reasonable guess as to what the latest GFDL
revision of each article is; whereas your average reuser could not.