2009/5/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever.
You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of your
relicensing relies on the claim
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever.
You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I'm not sure where you get the no from. The relicensing was done for
the
sake of third parties, not for Wikipedia sites.
It's means that even if your arguments about wikimedia not
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My comment was that the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the claim
that you're following it. In other words, the only reason you claim to be
able to relicense content under CC-BY-SA is because you claim the GFDL
allows you to do that (it doesn't
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My comment was that the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the
claim
that you're following it. In other words, the only reason you claim to
be
able to relicense content under
2009/5/30 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Once you've established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the
burden of proof is on the defense to show that they have a valid license.
The copyright holder doesn't have to build any case at all. The burden of
proof is on the reuser to show
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
The material has been released under the GFDL nothing wikimedia can do
can change that.
Sure.
Therefor it can be switched to CC-BY-SA-3.0.
{{citation needed}}...or should I say {{dubious}}?
Really Anthony even by your
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/30 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Once you've established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the
burden of proof is on the defense to show that they have a valid license.
The copyright holder doesn't have to
2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
effe iets anders wrote:
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I
Samuel Klein wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
what is being said they will still be
the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
into a given article.
They'll still be able to incorporate any of the GFDL
2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Samuel Klein wrote:
As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
If we were so fortunate as to have that as the
The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign
2009/5/28 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should
2009/5/28 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots.
Comparing Affero to just about any other free license shows that to be
2009/5/28 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
So it did. Wikipedia follows much stricter rules of reuse, which is
fair, as it is
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:51 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/28 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
compatible
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 28, 2009
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY
instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
As one of those
Hello,
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on August 1 of this year.
I am crossposting this from the licensing thread
Thanks for circulating this.
Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
Thanks for circulating this.
Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
Thanks for circulating this.
Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
lodewijk
2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
Thanks for circulating this.
Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
or more of those affected by
Hello,
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on August 1 of this year.
I am crossposting this from the licensing
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
updates over months or
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
optimal, but I think it's highly likely.
Who set the August 1 deadline and who has the power
2009/5/27 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
optimal, but I think it's highly
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
optimal, but I think it's highly likely.
That's a
effe iets anders wrote:
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of
38 matches
Mail list logo
