Re: GFDL / CC by-sa compatibility

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro 
>  
>
>>Yes, it's hypothetical.  Of course, I'm not aware of anybody 
>>legally using Wikipedia content for commercial purposes 
>>either, so hypothetical is basically all we've got.  And yes, 
>>it is already true for Wikimedia content.  But it isn't already 
>>true for all CC-by-sa content.  
>>    
>>
>
>Many people already are: 
>http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content
>  
>
Yeah, I assume I meant creating derivitive works.  Although, I might 
have been talking about "fair use" images.  I'm not sure what I was 
trying to say :).

>Although not all are doing so legally: 
>http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content#Sites_with_issues
>  
>
Including Wikipedia iteself.

>>Bastardising the CC-by-sa license for the sake of Wikimedia 
>>doesn't seem like a smart thing for CC to do.
>>    
>>
>
>Well that seems to be something they are doing all on their own without much 
>pressure from us. IMO it is a smart thing for them to do. Once that is done 
>we will ask the GNU people to reciprocate. 
>
>  
>
As I explained in my other messages, it is pointless.  You can already 
dual license your content under by-sa and the GFDL.  But I guess people 
don't understand that.  In any case, I would hope they create the 
bastardised version as a new license, say by-sa-gfdl.

>>What is your concern, exactly?  The by-nc, by itself, may 
>>not be compatible in spirit to the GFDL, but the GFDL dual 
>>licensed with the by-nc seems to be compatible in spirit 
>>with Wikipedia.  
>>    
>>
>
>Its the 'free and will forever be free' line that the by-nc lacks in spirit. 
>Blocking commercial use, even in a dual licensing scheme where commercial 
>users have an 'out', isn't in line with that. No need to alienate any of our 
>users by giving non-commercial ones special treatment. The by-nc is also not 
>a share-alike/copyleft license so derivative works need not be covered by 
>that license. Thus the great chain of positive feedback is broken. 
>  
>
We are already giving Wikipedia special treatment by allowing them to 
use images which are not GFDL compatible.  I don't expect this is going 
to stop, as many of those images are quite critical to a decent 
encylopedia, and are not available under any GFDL compatible license.  
Commercial users are already alienated, because they cannot use these 
images.  As for the "great chain of positive feedback," I think you're 
grossly overestimating it, plus I just highly doubt that a 
non-commercial entity is going to refuse to share the contributions they 
make in the first place.  For those things that they can't "give back," 
because they don't own the copyright on it, of course they aren't going 
to, but for those things they can.  Well, I just trust that the vast 
majority of them will, and for those that don't, we just create it 
ourselves.  But this is a valid point, I guess.  I guess I just didn't 
expect it was something that many contributors would care about.

In any case, I guess there are only three other ways to go.  You can 
just grant Wikipedia the right to do what it's doing, without letting 
anyone else, which I think is a terrible idea.  Or you can grant 
everyone the rights to include non-GFDLed derivitive works, so long as 
those derivitive works contain only "fair use" images in addition to 
GFDLed works.  I think that'll be a nightmare to put into legalese, and 
I think it'll probably suffer from massive loopholes anyway.  Finally, 
Wikipedia can just stop creating derivitive works include non-GFDL 
compatible images.  Of the three choices, I guess this is the best, but 
it basically makes it impossible to create competitive encylopedia 
articles on a vast number of different subjects, for which there are no 
GFDL or public domain images available, and for which it is impossible 
to create a new image (for instance because the person is dead or the 
event has already occurred).

>>Others have explained it.  But basically by creating a 
>>derivitive work which includes images which are not 
>>GFDL, you violate the GFDL. 
>>    
>>
>
>Not according to RMS who talked to his legal staff about just this issue IIRC 
>(I don't think he did so for the CC by-sa / GFDL issue - at least I hope so 
>given his obviously wrong response). An image can be treated as a separate 
>medium from the text and thus is not an intimate part of the combined work 
>and therefore not subject to any viral license the text is under.
>
I'd like to see this, because it seems quite suspect.

>This is especially true for web-based content since HTML explicitly treats images as 
>separate entities (only linking to the image's location in the HTML itself). 
>But PDF and PS do embed images so I think that is an open and untested part 
>of the law. But then IANAL (I only try to keep on top of legal news).
>  
>
Well, there have been court decisions stating quite plainly that it 
doesn't matter that the protocol treats images as separate entities, and 
that you are still creating a derivitive work.  This is true even if you 
link to the images from the original site.

>>Are you saying because the edit windows contain the 
>>entire text?  It would be easy enough to clarify that you 
>>are only dual licensing your changes, not the works of 
>>others.  I think that's kind of obvious, though. 
>>    
>>
>No it isn't obvious. Any change to the text creates a derivative work. 
>Therefore if you make a derivative work of a GFDL text then that derivative 
>work must be under the GFDL and only the GFDL.  You can't just add another 
>license onto the derivative work without the consent of the copyright 
>owner(s) of the original GFDL text. 
>  
>
Right.  You can't add another license onto the derivative work, but you 
can add another license onto your changes.

>>Also, why are you standing by while Wikipedia violates 
>>the GFDL on your text?
>>    
>>
>
>Because I, and I would venture to guess most Wikipedia contributors, think 
>that the GFDL has too many requirements. Therefore we explicitly free 
>downstream users of our content from the more onerous requirements of the 
>GFDL on our copyright policy page: 
>http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
>  
>
"If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the 
public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or 
back-cover texts)."  I don't see anything about freeing downstream users 
from the more onerous requirements.  Specifically, where does it say 
that you grant people permission to add non-GFDL content to derivitive 
works?

>>Personally, I don't mind Wikipedia's GFDL violations, 
>>because they aren't trying to profit off my text.  But 
>>maybe you don't wantto help out non-commercial 
>>entities other than Wikipedia?  Is that the problem? 
>>    
>>
>
>Any and all GFDL text can be used by non-profits or for-profits - it does not 
>discriminate. Downstream users just have to relicense any derivative works 
>under the GFDL and follow the other terms of the license. This ensures the 
>freedom of the content. 
>
Sure, they can use the text, but they can't use the images.  But hey, 
you're saying they can, because RMS said so.  Maybe if that was 
clarified somewhere that would be enough.  Of course it would also open 
up lots of loopholes, and the GFDL would no longer be a copyleft, which 
I think is what you were complaining about before.