[Licom-l] Two comments on m:Licensing Update

Fri Mar 27 17:45:54 UTC 2009

2009/3/27 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> "You may import any content from other sources that is available under
> the CC-BY-SA license, even if it is not available under the GNU Free
> Documentation License.  However, you may not import content that is
> only available under the GFDL.  If you import content under the
> CC-BY-SA license..."

This looks fine to me, and I agree that the word "text" is better than
"content" here. I would suggest keeping this sentence: "You are under
no obligation whatsoever to obtain such content also under the GFDL."
The intent here was to provide a sentence that people can point to in
cases where they receive objections that, with some nudging, some text
they are trying to import could be additionally made available under
the GFDL. CC-BY-SA import is meant to be as free of friction as
possible for the people performing it.

> "Text and rich media contributions that come from external sources may
> attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will
> strive to indicate clearly to you on the article or the description
> page for the file(s) in question."
>
> In practice to do any WMF venues indicate such information "on the
> article"?  I think it makes sense to drop that phrase.

I think just using the phrase "we will strive to indicate this clearly
to you" is indeed sufficient here; we can work out what is and isn't
acceptable attribution for external content over time.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate