Difference between revisions of "License change/Decision"

Revision as of 00:30, 1 April 2009

The license of Anarchopedia for interfering with statist and capitalist entities is GFDL (otherwise, we don't care about it). The main reason for choosing that license is compatibility with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now changing license to a kind of double licensing between GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Basically, the change is not relevant from our point, but if we don't change the license as Wikipedia changes it, the content from Anarchopedia won't be able to be included in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Because of that, we need to make a decision.

Discussion and voting starts at March 19th and ends at April 20th, 23:59. Option with the most of the votes will pass. One person may vote once per option.

Relevant pages

• Licensing update page for Wikimedia projects.
• Questions and answers made by Wikimedia community and WMF staff.
• License comparison at Meta Wikimedia.
• Timeline of the Wikimedia transition.

Discussion

About import into Anarchopedia: is it so big problem? Will anyone worry if Anarchopedia breaks licensing? Even if yes, I don't think that import articles is so important for Anarchopedia. I think it's better to write one's own small anarchistic article than copy a big and substantially useless one.

About export from Anarchopedia. This is not problem of Anarchopedia, this is problem of Wikipedia (and others). But! It will be problem only if Anarchopedia is against export. As mentioned above, 'license of Anarchopedia for interfering with statist and capitalist entities is GFDL (otherwise, we don't care about it)'. So, we are not against that out articles will be copyed. There is no problem of export at all!

Caesarion 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Importing articles is not an issue because Wikipedia will have a form of dual licensing, which means that only articles with explicitly CC-BY-SA-only contributions won't be able to be imported. The number of such articles will raise, but I don't think that it will be a serious issue in the future. --Milos Rancic 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More important issue is related to spreading our work. The fact is that Wikipedia is the most important online knowledge resource. While Wikipedia per se is not a statist nor capitalist entity, Wikipedia follows strictly statist and capitalist rules. If we don't allow them explicitly to use our content, they won't use it. We may treat it as a problem which is not our, in the sense of Anarchopedian community, but I think that it is a problem in the sense of spreading our ideas. --Milos Rancic 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Decision on this poll is valid only if Wikimedia changes their licensing.

I don't care

(These votes won't be counted.)

Switch to multiple licensing / public domain

We would be able to import every articles of wikipedia and other sites (multiple licensing).

We would be able to give our original articles to wikipedia and other sites (public domain).

The best option for me. --K2 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• --Esperanza 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is not an option, according to the GFDL terms. The only option is to switch to CC-BY-SA. BTW, it (Wikipedia-like license) will look like share-alike PD in practice. --Milos Rancic 02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be more precise: "Wikipedia-like" means any option which includes CC-BY-SA inside of it. --Milos Rancic 02:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood now the sense of the proposal. However, just new materials may be under PD, which would make our life more complex. At the other side, I don't think that it is an important issue to us. I don't expect that any anarchist would sue someone else because of license violation. We need licensing just because of explicitly saying to some statist and capitalist entities and entities which follow statist and capitalist rules that they may copy our content under specific conditions. For everybody else, licensing issues are completely irrelevant. --Milos Rancic 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• well, isnt it just the same like dual licensing just otherweise said? i think its not really relevant for a-pedia wether it will be run under GFDL or cc-by-sa. but if its only the question of formalities, i m for combining these two licenses this way. --Spongebob S. Pants 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

However, just new materials may be under PD, which would make our life more complex.

• Yes, I said "our original articles". Original articles in PD and the other articles under licenses.

Life is easy if you use templates: http://ita.anarchopedia.org/Tag_licenze--K2 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We need licensing just because of explicitly saying to some statist and capitalist entities and entities which follow statist and capitalist rules that they may copy our content under specific conditions.

• Yes, you can say them: "See the template at the end of the article. If you don't see any template, the article is in the PD.". This option is the only way to import every articles of wikipedia and other sites legally. For example, if you use GFDL or CC-BY-SA, you cannot import an article released under cc-by-nc. This is a great limit.--K2 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stay at GFDL

(We would be able to import the most of Wikipedia articles, but we won't be able to give our articles to Wikipedia.)

Switch to Wikipedia licensing

(We would be able to interfere with Wikipedia, but we won't be able to import GFDL-only articles.)

Switch to Wikipedia licensing with a possibility of importing GFDL texts

(As previous, but we would be able to import GFDL-only articles. However, this option makes our life very complex.)

Switch to the straight dual licensing

(We would be able to import the most of Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia would be able to take our articles, but we won't be able to import GFDL-only and CC-BY-SA-only texts.)

1. This is the best option, I suppose --Anna 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Hi! Me too.--F.1 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Switch to the straight dual licensing with a possibility to import GFDL and CC-BY-SA texts

(Combination of the two previous options. We would be able to do everything, but it makes our life very complex.)

Switch to CC-BY-SA

(Similar to switching to Wikipedia licensing: We would be able to interfere with Wikipedia, but we won't be able to import GFDL articles.)