[Licom-l] Opt-out?

Wed May 27 20:51:21 UTC 2009

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 2009/5/26 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
>> One of the unresolved issues in my estimation is how to react to
>> people who say: "Relicensing?  Not my work, no way, no how!".
>
> Yes: I don't think we can give any prescriptive answer, but for this
> and for some other licensing-related practical questions (including
> the "external content attribution" question), I think we should start
> coming up with a list of recommendations for Wikimedia communities.
> Communities would be free to implement these as they see fit.
>
> An example recommendation here could be to extend the courtesy of
> removal where doing so is reasonably possible without major
> disruption.

On this issue the WMF would be within their rights to be prescriptive.
 (Whether they want to be is a separate question.)  The relicensing
provisions require an overt act by the Foundation, so the WMF could
choose to exclude certain works.

For example, the WMF could say:"Relicensing applies to all media files
validly tagged as GFDL 1.2 or later versions as of 12:01 AM on June
15th, 2009".  With the stipulation that anyone who doesn't want to
participate has between now and June 15th to change a "1.2 or later
versions" tag on their own work to a "1.2-only" tag.  That has the
advantage of being final and legally binding.

The alternative, to let communities set their own rules, could also
work though I think it is more likely to drag the process out.  It
also risks the creation of fragmentary rules (what if Commons has
different rules than EN?) and leading to fights where someone other
than the author reuploads a work claiming they are just exercising
their rights, etc.

-Robert Rohde