[ExI] Original list Was: Re: Call To Libertarians

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> contract that assigned their text through Creative Commons. I don't
>> know what happened to content that was anonymous, or where the author
>> failed to sign the agreement. They changed their user agreement around
>> that time so that everyone by default was contributing through
>> Creative Commons.
>
>
> I thought that FSF published an update to the GFDL that allowed Wikimedia
> to transfer over their content to a Creative Commons license? Presumably,
> everyone making an edit to Wikipedia is assigning the copyright of their
> original content to either the Free Software Foundation (per the GFDL) or to
> Wikimedia, who would then be able to control whether or not to port it to a
> Creative Commons license.
>
> or am I horribly misinformed?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms

"""

Although the two licenses work on similar copyleft principles, the GFDL is
not compatible with the Creative
Commons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons>
Attribution-ShareAlike<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses>license.
However, version 1.3 added a new section allowing specific types of
websites using the GFDL to additionally offer their work under the CC-BY-SA
license.

These exemptions allow a GFDL-based collaborative project with multiple
authors to transition to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (which would normally
require the permission of every author), if the work satisfies several
conditions:[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#cite_note-onepoint3faq-1>

   - The work must have been produced on a "Massive Multiauthor
   Collaboration Site" (MMC), such as a public
wiki<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki>for example.
   - If external content originally published on a MMC is present on the
   site, the work must have been licensed under Version 1.3 of the GNU FDL, or
   an earlier version but with the "or any later version" declaration, with no
   cover texts or invariant sections. If it was not originally published on an
   MMC, it can only be relicensed if it were added to an MMC before November 1,
   2008.

To prevent the clause from being used as a general compatibility measure,
the license itself only allowed the change to occur before August 1, 2009.
At the release of version 1.3, the FSF stated that all content added before
November 1, 2008 to Wikipedia as an example satisfied the conditions. The
Wikimedia Foundation itself after a public referendum, invoked this process
to dual-license content released under the GFDL under the CC-BY-SA license
in June 2009, and adopted a foundation-wide attribution policy for the use
of content from Wikimedia Foundation
projects.[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#cite_note-6>

"""
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110221/0e12e563/attachment.html>