new license
We should talk here about possible new license of Anarchopedia. AFAIK, GNU/FSF will allow switch from GFDL to something which they are calling "GNU Wiki license". This is not so new information, but as GPLv3 realized, it seems that new GFDL will be realized, too. --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In general, we may stay on GFDL (something like GFDLv2 instead of v1.2), because it seems that SFDL and GNU Wiki license will be possible to adopt under GFDL (but not vice-versa). However, a practical problem is that GFDL is really bad license for one wiki (even we are anarchists and we will not sue each other for infringement of GFDL ;) ). --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So, question is what to do? --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, discuss at the section "discussion" and add links into the section "links". --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Misconceptions[edit]
- FSF does not enforce the licences themselves when they do not posess the copyright. They will only provide some guidance to the copyright holders. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that FSF will allow (because of Wikipedia) switch from very complex GFDL (2.0) to some less complex license (GSFDL or GWL). For example, it is impossible to put GFDL text on some small piece of paper because GFDL requires including the whole license inside of copied/modified text. Even there are less then 100 contributors of Anarchopedia, we still have a problem to ask everyone to change a license to something else. AFAIK, there will be a limited time for adoption of new license (in new version of GFDL will stay something like "for work made using wiki (or similar) concept of collaborative work made previous to YYYY-MM-DD, work may be transfered to GNU Wiki license"). So, this is the point of FSF... According to permission to publish work under GFDL 1.2 or later, it will be possible to use the work (according to the license terms of the future, GFDLv2) under the terms of some other, less complex license. --Milos Rancic 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but my point is that the original author can always say "Fuck off, i don't want 'or later'". We currently have this message "Please note that all contributions to Anarchopedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Anarchopedia:Copyrights for details)." Thus it's not clear which version we are talking about. What you are saying is that we need to put that "or later" part in there. Of course theoretically we need to get permissions of the authors up until this point, but i think we can do that during the General Meeting... q;-) Beta M 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Construction "under GFDL" is tricky because it refers to all versions of GFDL. However, I think that the best idea to start with Wikipedia Copyright and to regulate this. However, important thing is to reach consensus what should we do when GFDLv2 comes? And this should be done fast because GPLv3 is done and the next license is GFDLv2. And when it comes in the air we will not have enough time for decision. --Milos Rancic 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but my point is that the original author can always say "Fuck off, i don't want 'or later'". We currently have this message "Please note that all contributions to Anarchopedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Anarchopedia:Copyrights for details)." Thus it's not clear which version we are talking about. What you are saying is that we need to put that "or later" part in there. Of course theoretically we need to get permissions of the authors up until this point, but i think we can do that during the General Meeting... q;-) Beta M 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that FSF will allow (because of Wikipedia) switch from very complex GFDL (2.0) to some less complex license (GSFDL or GWL). For example, it is impossible to put GFDL text on some small piece of paper because GFDL requires including the whole license inside of copied/modified text. Even there are less then 100 contributors of Anarchopedia, we still have a problem to ask everyone to change a license to something else. AFAIK, there will be a limited time for adoption of new license (in new version of GFDL will stay something like "for work made using wiki (or similar) concept of collaborative work made previous to YYYY-MM-DD, work may be transfered to GNU Wiki license"). So, this is the point of FSF... According to permission to publish work under GFDL 1.2 or later, it will be possible to use the work (according to the license terms of the future, GFDLv2) under the terms of some other, less complex license. --Milos Rancic 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- From this we can come to another misconception that FSF can "allow" somebody to switch from one licence to another. Copyright holder can do what one desires. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are some licences which are compatible in a way Millosh describes. For example one can take a new BSD licenced work and GPLv2 or higher it, this is the case even when one isn't the original author, but is just one of the contributors. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Personally i'm up for public domain, and i release all my work on this project in such a way. Public domain is compatible with any licence. For example, if i create a pd article and Millosh edits that article claiming that it's now under GFDL, the result is in fact under GFDL... and all subsequent editors must respect that. However, anybody can still release their work in PD... since all licences work on top of the copyright there's no restriction upon the actual author (copyright holder) whatsoever. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am close to the opinion that all of the work should be PD (btw, according to European/continental law, PD is not possible for people, but just for institutions; the only possible form is something like CC-BY). However, the point (or "my point" :) ) of using GFDL here is not to restrict something, but to be compatible with Wikipedia. At least, we should be able to copy page from Wikipedia and to edit it here. (Also, it is useful that a page may be copied from Anarchopedia to Wikipedia, too.) So, the question of Anarchopedia's license is not a clear ethical question, but also a pragmatic one. (For a number of times my idea was to switch to CC-BY-SA for my works. However, except on my blog, on all other places I need compatibility with Wikipedia... And always someone needed to repeat to me that fact ;) ) --Milos Rancic 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why not a permissive license (like the fair license)? They have all or most of the advantages of PD with none of the legal confusion and license incompatibility (and, of course, permissive licenses tend to be far shorter -> quicker to read and simpler to understand).
