[WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia of Earth appears to be now online...

Sun Sep 24 16:42:22 UTC 2006

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fastfission wrote:
> On 9/22/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The GFDL is such an *awful* licence for wiki text.
> 
> Almost everybody seems to agree that the GFDL doesn't really get the job done.
> 
> Is there a reason we haven't worked to implement a new licensing
> agreement for all edits this-point-on? I raised this once before but I
> don't think anything ever came of it.
> 
> My suggestion: Change the edit-field notice from "You agree to license
> your contributions under the GFDL." to "You agree to license your
> contributions under the GFDL, or a [[similarly free]] license chosen
> by the Wikimedia Foundation."
> 
> "Similarly free" would link to a page explaining that the WMF would be
> given the right to re-license or multi-license content but only under
> licenses which met the requirements of "free content" (which we could
> outline).
> 
> We could even make it so that all users would be required to say that
> all of their previous content released under GFDL was similarly open
> to multilicensing.
> 
> It would only create a minor mess at first. Everything could be
> assumed released as GFDL. Tools could be developed to scan an article
> for content which could be released as CC-BY-SA (for example, if it
> was one of the license approved by WMF).
> 
> Anyway. It's an idea. It is one which gives the WMF a lot more
> flexibility than it currently has, though within the commitments of
> basic "free content" guidelines which would be inflexible. It allows
> for future licensing possibilities to ensure freedom and accessibility
> for the long term (GFDL doesn't work well with printed photographs;
> who knows what technology of the future would be tied up by some
> aspect of it?). And at the bare minimum all content would still be
> GFDL.
> 
> It's an idea which does the most work the sooner it is implemented, as well.
> 
> Just an idea...
> 
> FF

1. You can't legally require anyone to relicence their work just because
you decide you don't like the terms any more. They would be perfectly
entitled to say 'fuck you' (or some lawyer-approved legalese equivalent)
to the WMF
2. Making all future contributions multi-licenceable would create two
problems:
a) New contributions may be licence-incompatible with new ones
b) A great deal of contributors would go to Citizendium instead

Cynical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3rc2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFFrVug8fvtQYQevcRAkHrAJ9nUTjwV0A1SXRgYuK7N5rfnMqJ5wCePDNJ
/Lm7eR33JIGvfaZ/PJ45hBw=
=0ixp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----