[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

Tue Nov 4 01:49:58 UTC 2008

Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2008/11/3 John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no>:
> 
>> Note is it common in Norway, from previous cases, to be able to opt out
>> of major single sided changes in such arrangements.
> 
> We'll address the jurisdictional issue in the migration proposal.
>

That will be interesting, and I'll look forward to it. Personally I
don't think very many will choose to opt out, but I really don't know.
It is enough that very few persons opt out for a chaos to emerge...

>> If I understand you correctly; no matter what later Creative Commons
>> license is choosen, the GFDL in some version will be keept?
> 
> Except for articles incorporating CC-BY-SA-only changes, yes.
> 
>> Will Wikimedia Foundation take the role of a publisher when relicensing
>> content?
> 
> Mike can answer much better to any section 230 issues, but no, I don't
> see how it would. This change seems to me to be very similar in nature
> to our licensing policy.

I don't think so, because you can make a site and say people has to
contribute given these limitations, without ever touching their content.
If you changes the rules so people has to change their content, or
remove the content, or are deprived for certain rights they previously
had for the said content, then I think you have touched their content
and taken on an editorial role.

I myself thinks dual licensing is somewhat crappy but it is a kind of
least evil thing to do. The collective crediting scheme is the one I
fear most as that will violate the Norwegian copyright law as it says
authors should be attributed and that this is a right they can't give
away. CC-by-sa, even if crappy, is acceptable together with GFDL if the
attribution of authors are done according to this license, that is
attribution has to satisfy both licenses. If the attribution is only
«Wikipedia», then we run into trouble...

To make a system for extracting five likely authors, even if difficult,
should be managable.

John