bawolff | 2 Mar 02:04 2009
Picon

Re: License change?

From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding).
We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah
license, but thats messy).

Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
disallow.

--
- bawolff

p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns +
images)

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis <wiki <at> konsoletek.com> wrote:
> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but here I
> go.
>
> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since that is
> now allowed for a short period of time).  Since everything newer than Sept
> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why
> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also?  I realize we don't
> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most people,
> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
>
(Continue reading)

Ilya Haykinson | 2 Mar 07:18 2009
Picon

Re: License change?

I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of Wikinews
content ;-)

-ilya

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff <bawolff+wn <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to
> cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by
> (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding).
> We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
> could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah
> license, but thats messy).
>
> Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that
> modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a
> perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> disallow.
>
> --
> - bawolff
>
> p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only
> a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns +
(Continue reading)

Jon Davis | 2 Mar 07:36 2009

Re: License change?

Yea. Forgive me.  For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL.  I really don't know where that came from. 

-Jon

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson <haykinson <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of Wikinews
content ;-)

-ilya

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff <bawolff+wn <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from gfdl to
> cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different than cc-by
> (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my understanding).
> We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
> could say something like from this day forward, everything is blah
> license, but thats messy).
>
> Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people feel that
> modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution is a
> perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> disallow.
>
> --
> - bawolff
>
> p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently have only
> a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help ns +
> images)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis <wiki <at> konsoletek.com> wrote:
>> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing licenses... but here I
>> go.
>>
>> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-BY (since that is
>> now allowed for a short period of time).  Since everything newer than Sept
>> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is GFDL)... why
>> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also?  I realize we don't
>> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest to most people,
>> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
>>
>> -Jon
>> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
>>
>> --
>> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikinews-l mailing list
>> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l



--
This is a test of the emergency sig system.  

Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles.  So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke.
Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
wikinewssvt | 2 Mar 16:39 2009
Picon

Re: License change?

Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...

... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.

Is my assumption correct or false?

It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.

SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davis
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
To: Wikinews mailing list

> Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that
> the old
> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
> Wikinews> content ;-)
> >
> > -ilya
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
> >> wrote:
> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
> gfdl to
> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
> than cc-by
> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
> understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to
> arbitrary change license (we
> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything
> is blah
> > > license, but thats messy).
> > >
> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
> feel that
> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
> is a
> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> > > disallow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - bawolff
> > >
> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
> have only
> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
> ns +
> > > images)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
> wrote:
> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
> licenses... but
> > here I
> > >> go.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
> BY (since
> > that is
> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
> newer than
> > Sept
> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
> GFDL)... why
> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
> realize we
> > don't
> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
> to most
> > people,
> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
> > >>
> > >> -Jon
> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list
> > >> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>
> Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So
> if you're
> coming to get me, better send a nuke.
> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
> <at> konsoletek.com>%2bwn <at> gmail.com>+wn <at> gmail.com> <at> gmail.com> <at> lists.wikimedia.org> <at> konsoletek.com>

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Brian McNeil | 2 Mar 18:44 2009

Re: License change?

There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.

 

First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.

 

Then they have to move to the CC license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net
Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...

... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.

Is my assumption correct or false?

It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.

SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davis
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
To: Wikinews mailing list

> Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that
> the old
> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
> Wikinews> content ;-)
> >
> > -ilya
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
> >> wrote:
> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
> gfdl to
> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
> than cc-by
> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
> understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to
> arbitrary change license (we
> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything
> is blah
> > > license, but thats messy).
> > >
> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
> feel that
> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
> is a
> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> > > disallow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - bawolff
> > >
> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
> have only
> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
> ns +
> > > images)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
> wrote:
> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
> licenses... but
> > here I
> > >> go.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
> BY (since
> > that is
> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
> newer than
> > Sept
> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
> GFDL)... why
> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
> realize we
> > don't
> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
> to most
> > people,
> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
> > >>
> > >> -Jon
> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list
> > >> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>
> Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So
> if you're
> coming to get me, better send a nuke.
> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
>

<at> konsoletek.com>%2bwn <at> gmail.com>+wn <at> gmail.com> <at> gmail.com> <at> lists.wikimedia.org> <at> konsoletek.com>
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Patrick Mannion | 2 Mar 19:08 2009
Picon

Re: License change?

I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil <at> wikinewsie.org> wrote:

There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.

 

First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.

 

Then they have to move to the CC license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net
Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...

... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.

Is my assumption correct or false?

It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.

SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davis
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
To: Wikinews mailing list

> Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that
> the old
> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
> Wikinews> content ;-)
> >
> > -ilya
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
> >> wrote:
> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
> gfdl to
> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
> than cc-by
> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
> understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to
> arbitrary change license (we
> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything
> is blah
> > > license, but thats messy).
> > >
> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
> feel that
> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
> is a
> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> > > disallow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - bawolff
> > >
> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
> have only
> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
> ns +
> > > images)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
> wrote:
> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
> licenses... but
> > here I
> > >> go.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
> BY (since
> > that is
> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
> newer than
> > Sept
> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
> GFDL)... why
> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
> realize we
> > don't
> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
> to most
> > people,
> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
> > >>
> > >> -Jon
> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list
> > >> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>
> Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So
> if you're
> coming to get me, better send a nuke.
> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




--
Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift.
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Brian McNeil | 2 Mar 19:55 2009

Re: License change?

It is not really practical for us to change licenses on articles. This would – per article – require agreement from all contributors.

 

For Wikinews to change license it would be like last time, set a cutoff date and everything after that uses the new license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mannion
Sent: 02 March 2009 19:08
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil <at> wikinewsie.org> wrote:

There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.

 

First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.

 

Then they have to move to the CC license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net
Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...

... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.

Is my assumption correct or false?

It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.

SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davis
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
To: Wikinews mailing list

> Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that
> the old
> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
> Wikinews> content ;-)
> >
> > -ilya
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
> >> wrote:
> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
> gfdl to
> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
> than cc-by
> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
> understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to
> arbitrary change license (we
> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything
> is blah
> > > license, but thats messy).
> > >
> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
> feel that
> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
> is a
> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> > > disallow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - bawolff
> > >
> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
> have only
> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
> ns +
> > > images)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
> wrote:
> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
> licenses... but
> > here I
> > >> go.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
> BY (since
> > that is
> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
> newer than
> > Sept
> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
> GFDL)... why
> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
> realize we
> > don't
> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
> to most
> > people,
> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
> > >>
> > >> -Jon
> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list
> > >> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>
> Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So
> if you're
> coming to get me, better send a nuke.
> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




--
Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Jon Davis | 2 Mar 20:03 2009

Re: License change?

We should just install click wrap them "By creating a wikinews account, you agree to let us change the license for the articles at any point in time". 

In all seriousness though.  Is there anything new in CC 3.0 that would be beneficial for us to "upgrade"?

-Jon
[[User:ShakataGaNai]]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:55, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil <at> wikinewsie.org> wrote:

It is not really practical for us to change licenses on articles. This would – per article – require agreement from all contributors.

 

For Wikinews to change license it would be like last time, set a cutoff date and everything after that uses the new license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mannion
Sent: 02 March 2009 19:08
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

I'm for porting everything (minus PD articles) up to 3.0. However, I don't want us to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The point is to get our articles out there.... and CC-BY help us that way, more then good old media does with their restrictive good old copyright and non-redistribution and paid reporters!

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil <at> wikinewsie.org> wrote:

There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.

 

First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.

 

Then they have to move to the CC license.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net
Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39
To: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

 

Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...

... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.

Is my assumption correct or false?

It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.

SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davis
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
To: Wikinews mailing list

> Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that
> the old
> articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a
> > problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with
> > attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their
> > license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change.
> > Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our
> > license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding
> > reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place.
> > Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
> Wikinews> content ;-)
> >
> > -ilya
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
> >> wrote:
> > > From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
> gfdl to
> > > cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
> than cc-by
> > > (similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
> understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to
> arbitrary change license (we
> > > could say something like from this day forward, everything
> is blah
> > > license, but thats messy).
> > >
> > > Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
> feel that
> > > modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
> is a
> > > perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would
> > > disallow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - bawolff
> > >
> > > p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
> have only
> > > a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
> ns +
> > > images)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
> wrote:
> > >> I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
> licenses... but
> > here I
> > >> go.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
> BY (since
> > that is
> > >> now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
> newer than
> > Sept
> > >> 05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
> GFDL)... why
> > >> can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
> realize we
> > don't
> > >> "need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
> to most
> > people,
> > >> but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
> > >>
> > >> -Jon
> > >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikinews-l mailing list
> > >> Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is a test of the emergency sig system.
>
> Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So
> if you're
> coming to get me, better send a nuke.
> Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




--
Autism is both a gift and a curse at the same time; But I think of it as a gift.


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




--
This is a test of the emergency sig system.  

Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles.  So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke.
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Erik Moeller | 2 Mar 20:29 2009
Picon

Re: License change?

2009/3/2  <wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net>:
> Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
>
> ... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able
> to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
>
> Is my assumption correct or false?

My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and
CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled
CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the
new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become
CC-BY-SA.

Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.

Erik
--

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Mike Linksvayer | 2 Mar 20:40 2009

Re: License change?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Erik Moeller <erik <at> wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 2009/3/2  <wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net>:
>> Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
>>
>> ... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able
>> to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
>>
>> Is my assumption correct or false?
>
> My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and
> CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled
> CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the
> new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become
> CC-BY-SA.
>
> Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.

Erik is right.

The only other thing to consider would be fair use (I see "passages"
above, which could mean very brief). But this would be no change from
the FDL. I see that http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use is
all about images.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Brian McNeil | 3 Mar 10:56 2009

Re: License change?

Based on Erik and Mike's responses I would say we need to look at some
tweaking to the EDP/Fair Use guidelines.

I'd be happy to be able to lift a sentence or three from a WP article, but
how we word a generic fair-use claim for doing something like that may be
tricky.

There have recently, and I suspect going right back to the beginning of the
project, cases where people have tried to cut and paste bits from source
articles, we can't open the door to that. It may be that we need provision
for fair use quoting from free sources like Wikipedia, but absolutely not
for news sources where we could be considered one of their competitors.

Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikinews-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer
Sent: 02 March 2009 20:41
To: Erik Moeller
Cc: Wikinews mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Erik Moeller <erik <at> wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 2009/3/2  <wikinewssvt <at> optonline.net>:
>> Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
>>
>> ... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be
able
>> to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
>>
>> Is my assumption correct or false?
>
> My understanding is that it's considered legal to mix CC-BY and
> CC-BY-SA articles, as long as the resultant combined work is labeled
> CC-BY-SA. So if that's the case, you could import WP content under the
> new licensing regime, but the Wikinews article would then become
> CC-BY-SA.
>
> Copying CC's Mike Linksvayer in case he wants to weigh in.

Erik is right.

The only other thing to consider would be fair use (I see "passages"
above, which could mean very brief). But this would be no change from
the FDL. I see that http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Fair_use is
all about images.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

Gmane