Difference between revisions of "Interoperability between Creative Commons licenses and GFDL"
(== Latest news == - copied from Appropedia) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | '''UPDATE:''' Relicensing is now possible: | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20081110-00 Wikimedia and GFDL 1.3] copyrighteous Mon, 10 Nov 2008 | ||
| + | |||
| + | More detail at: | ||
| + | * [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation LicenseVersion 1.3] 3 November 2008, at the Free Softare Foundation's website. | ||
| + | * [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/046996.html GFDL 1.3 Release] (Foundation-l posting by Erik Möller): | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us | ||
| + | to develop this re-licensing language. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This | ||
| + | section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e. | ||
| + | wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the | ||
| + | CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed | ||
| + | after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL | ||
| + | content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as | ||
| + | well...) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by | ||
| + | any other party... | ||
| + | |||
| + | * As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing | ||
| + | external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will | ||
| + | be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Interoperability between [[CC-by-sa]] and [[GFDL]] has been requested by the Wikimedia Foundation board, which in late November 2007 passed a resolution: | Interoperability between [[CC-by-sa]] and [[GFDL]] has been requested by the Wikimedia Foundation board, which in late November 2007 passed a resolution: | ||
| − | :The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. | + | :The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. -- ''[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 Progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia], Mike Linksvayer, Creative Commons blog, December 1st, 2007.'' |
| + | |||
| + | == Latest news == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Wikimedia Foundation: | ||
| + | <blockquote>will present a proposal for dual-licensing all Wikimedia projects currently using the GFDL, by January 15, 2009. It will be published on the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l foundation-l] mailing list. This proposal will be discussed and revised through open community discussion, leading to an open vote among all active Wikimedia contributors (to be defined using similar criteria as the Board elections). If a majority of community members favor migration to CC-BY-SA, it will be implemented. -- [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers Licensing update/Questions and Answers] at Meta. | ||
| − | + | See also the Creative Commons blog post, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/11544 Wikipedia licensing Q&A posted], 15 Dec 2008. | |
| + | Also watch for updates at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update Licensing update] at Meta. | ||
== CC-by == | == CC-by == | ||
| − | + | [[CC-by]] is one-way-compatible with GFDL - meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa. | |
| + | |||
| + | Source: James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor at New York Law School, (Institute for Information Law and Policy). ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-April/005473.html <nowiki>[cc-licenses]</nowiki> CC-BY=>CC-BY-SA/GFDL], Apr 19, 2007.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | See also [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-September/000329.html<nowiki>[Wikinews-l]</nowiki> The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed], Sep 2005. | ||
== Non-commercial licenses == | == Non-commercial licenses == | ||
| − | No NC license can ever be compatible with [[GFDL]]. | + | No NC ([[Non-commercial]]) license can ever be compatible with [[GFDL]]. |
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Latest revision as of 21:18, 26 December 2008
UPDATE: Relicensing is now possible:
Wikimedia and GFDL 1.3 copyrighteous Mon, 10 Nov 2008
More detail at:
- GNU Free Documentation LicenseVersion 1.3 3 November 2008, at the Free Softare Foundation's website.
- GFDL 1.3 Release (Foundation-l posting by Erik Möller):
We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us to develop this re-licensing language.
The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e. wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:
- Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed
after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as well...)
- The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.
Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by any other party...
- As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing
external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future.
Interoperability between CC-by-sa and GFDL has been requested by the Wikimedia Foundation board, which in late November 2007 passed a resolution:
- The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. -- Progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia, Mike Linksvayer, Creative Commons blog, December 1st, 2007.
Latest news
The Wikimedia Foundation:
will present a proposal for dual-licensing all Wikimedia projects currently using the GFDL, by January 15, 2009. It will be published on the foundation-l mailing list. This proposal will be discussed and revised through open community discussion, leading to an open vote among all active Wikimedia contributors (to be defined using similar criteria as the Board elections). If a majority of community members favor migration to CC-BY-SA, it will be implemented. -- Licensing update/Questions and Answers at Meta.
See also the Creative Commons blog post, Wikipedia licensing Q&A posted, 15 Dec 2008.
Also watch for updates at Licensing update at Meta.
CC-by
CC-by is one-way-compatible with GFDL - meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa.
Source: James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor at New York Law School, (Institute for Information Law and Policy). ([cc-licenses] CC-BY=>CC-BY-SA/GFDL, Apr 19, 2007.)
See also [Wikinews-l] The Wikinews Licensure Poll is closed, Sep 2005.
Non-commercial licenses
No NC (Non-commercial) license can ever be compatible with GFDL.
Footnotes
</references>
