Dear Kernigh and others concerned,
Although the English Wikisource has explicitly prohibited
noncommercial licenses, the copyright policy doesn't address any of
the other Creative Commons options; share-alike (SA), attribution
(BY), and nonderivative (ND) licenses are currently permitted.
However, I'm not aware of any work on the English Wikisource currently
hosted under a CC license.
Yours sincerely,
Jesse Martin ([[en:user:Pathoschild]])
On 5/12/06, xkernigh(a)netscape.net <xkernigh(a)netscape.net> wrote:
Amgine wrote:
The CC-by 2.5 license allows content which is
created under it to be
relicensed under another free license which meets its minimums.
The GFDL meets these minimums, but does not allow content created
under
it to be relicensed.
My argument was that the GFDL does not meet the minimums because
it lacks an equivalent to CC-BY clause 4a...
Maybe we at Wikisource are confusing two concepts, GFDL-compatible
and free content? Let me quote the emails that apparently trigerred
Wikisource to change its copyright policy.
Kernigh (myself), 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006014.htm
l
I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I
have some
noncommercial or
no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then
I am allowed to
upload
that source text to en.Wikisource.
In reply, Angela, 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006015.htm
l
No, you are not allowed to do that. The text
under the edit box states
"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.
(It actually says "Please note that all contributions to Wikisource
are
considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License
(see Wikisource:Copyright for details)." Wikisource:Copyright had the
clause which I believed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND contributions.)
Here, "is not compatible with the GFDL" and "is also not a free
license"
are listed together.
After this, there were some discussions in the Scriptorium. I was not
active
on Wikisource at the time, so I was not involved in en.wikisource's
adoption
of the GFDL-compatibility requirement.
Zhaladshar, 11 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#CC-
NC_license.3F
Wikisource's policy is that we accept any
work that we can legally
display on the site. We are pretty much open to anything other than
fair use documents.
Pathoschild, 11 February 2006, in reply
I asked Jimbo Wales a little while ago, and the
general response was
that we don't want noncommercial licenses on any of Wikimedia's
projects.
Phr, 11 February 2006, in reply
CC licenses designated "NC"
(non-commercial) are incompatible with the
GFDL and with the notion of Libre content ([5]) which is one of the
guiding
principles of the Wikimedia projects.
Again, both GFDL compatibility and free ("libre") content are mentioned
together. Things started to lean toward GFDL compatibility...
Pathoschild, 12 February 2006, in reply
For content to be acceptable on Wikisource, it
doesn't necessarily
have
to be relicensed under the GFDL. However, it must
be compatible with
it;
ie, we must have the same rights under that
license than we do under
the GDFL.
jwales on IRC, 16 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/03#Non
commercial_licenses_prohibited
Noncomercial-only license are basically the same
thing as torturing
kittens.
Zhaladshar, 22 February 2006
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:Copyright_policy
Please see the Foundation-I mailing list. This
has actually come up
over
there. It seems that all submissions to WS must
be either public
domain,
GFDL, or GFDL-compatible.
What had happened on foundation-l?
Angela, 11 February 2006
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006026.htm
l
It really shouldn't be news to anyone using
Wikisource that all
Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
Jimmy Wales, 12 February 2006, in reply
Totally. That's been foundation policy
forever.
Wait... if foundation-l is talking about "freely licensed text", then
why
is en.wikisource talking about "GFDL-compatible"?
Then en.wikisource adopted the requirement of GFDL-compatibility
in their new copyright policy at 4 April 2006.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Pol
l
----
I should mention that "GFDL compatibility" and "free content"
are not the same. CC-BY is free content, and might or might not be
compatible with the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is free content that is apparently
not compatible witht he GFDL. An Invariant Section that is compatible
with the GFDL is not free content.
We have a chance here. Multilingual/international Wikisource is
discussing a new copyright policy. If they decide to allow CC-BY and
CC-BY-SA licenses, then we might be able to convince en.wikisource
to allow them too. However, I am not sure yet whether or not I want
Wikisource to allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_pages
GFDL compatibility or free content? Which one?
-- [[User:Kernigh]]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)mail.wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l