Archive - old conversations relating to initial license choice.

With trepidation and excitement Appropedia will be adopting the GNU-FDL for our pages. Other licenses may still be looked at for other media content. These changes will be reflected on the pages and Project:Copyrights soon. Thank you Singkong2005 and Curtbeckmann for all of your pressure. --Lonny 13:52, 6 October 2006 (PDT)
Yeah! A little trepidation is okay, I think :-). Now I'll go tidy up the copyright section of the test main page :-) Thanks, Lonny! It actually makes me feel better that you've given it thorough consideration! --Curtbeckmann 13:57, 6 October 2006 (PDT)
Amazingly, Lonny and I actually spoke by phone last night! Wow, what'll they think of next? One upshot of the conversation was that I finally understood Lonny's concerns about the GNU-FDL, which I will attempt to express here. Above he mentions the concern that allowing 1st world commercialization may discourage contributions. I mistook that to mean that potential contributors might be opposed to commercialization in the 1st world. As I now understand his concern, it is that there may be potential contributors who want to reserve their rights to exclusive 1st world commercialization, which is quite different. After thinking about it, I think that Lonny has a point. I've dropped a note to a lawyer friend who may have some insight. We'll see.
Before we hear back from the lawyer, I'll list some other thoughts. Lonny and I spoke briefly about options. Here are some:
  1. Support more than one license. A default license, plus another that would be called out page by page.
  2. Use a links to refer to content on other sites released under licenses than the Appropedia scheme
  3. Create and maintain a separate site for that other content
After sleeping on it, I believe there would be problems with "anyone can edit" coexisting with any form of reserved rights. I would guess that you won't see CCDN licenses on open wikis. Anyone can come in, remove the copyright or change the content, etc. I also think that having a complex copyright scheme will discourage some folks just by confusing them. So I think that the first option (multiple licenses) probably doesn't work. I think the other 2 options are perfectly viable, and consequently I think we should move forward with the GNU-FDL as announced above. Sorry for the shaggy dog story, but wanted to get others "in the know." --Curtbeckmann 07:58, 7 October 2006 (PDT)
The GNU-FDL has finally been accepted and added (see footer). --Lonny 02:47, 11 October 2006 (PDT)
Curt, I see what you are saying about allowing other copyrights for content. But I still see promise in allowing diverse copyrights for media as opposed to text content. There is some precedent for this, and it seems to avoid your concern. --Lonny 02:47, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

Revisit licensing[edit source]

This conversation started on Lonny's talk page, but I've taken the liberty of moving it where I think it fits better. --Singkong2005 · talk 20:06, 20 November 2006 (PST)

Sigh. But we have new info, since Helge is clearly much more versed; I think the CC license is the way to go, but perhaps it's dual licensing. If you want to re-open this, I'll join you (after this weekend when I'll be vacationing sans Internet) in notifying contributors and modifying copyright pages. Is there an efficient way to identify those contributors? --CurtB 06:41, 3 November 2006 (PST)

I think the CC license (Google just donated $30,000) is the way to go as well. Does CCDN still seem the best choice? As far as the contributors, I have already asked about half if they would mind the change, all approved. If you could contact the information that you, User:Kjpeterson and User:Zenalejandro added, I think that I can take care of the rest. We should also probably move this conversation to Appropedia_talk:Copyrights, and we need get feedback from Chris. --Lonny 11:36, 3 November 2006 (PST)
I think Helge was recommending CC attribution, which is very similar to GFDL except simpler. I think CCDN may have problems with open editing. My thinking is that with CCDN you are protecting something, and it ought to be well-defined, and with open editing that seems a challenge. My thought about that is that there should be a sister site for CCDN content, probably a wiki (sweat the name later) but with some kind of protection; it depends on what protection MediaWiki offers... Could also just be a non-editable site.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself. We should start by reading the links that Helge provided (on his talk page) about CC options versus GFDL, plus the dual licensing option. Then perhaps we can speak/write with more intelligence... I guess I could have answered at Talk:copyrights. Oops... --CurtB 12:06, 3 November 2006 (PST)
I forgot to comment on the other users related to the licensing. In both cases, I saw them posting marketing material (which is perfectly fine) that I expect they would love to have copied, with or without attribution, so I don't expect issues there, and of course we can remove the material if necessary. In any case, I will let them know that we will likely be changing soon. I will also let the IRN folks know. --CurtB 19:34, 3 November 2006 (PST)
If there is a need for licensing differentiating (i.e. content with licence A only, other with B only) I think it's not necessary to create a separate site/wiki for that. I believe Appropedia:Copyrights could say "all contents licensed unter A unless stated otherwise", while a prominent note a specific wiki would say "licenced under B, in contrast to the rest of this site" (similar to the dual-licence-badges on wikimedia commons). Regarding open editing and CCDN: Not sure if that is a bad match. Afaik AFH's 'open architecture network' is set to combine the two. Probably is more a social question than a legal one. --Helge 09:49, 4 November 2006 (PST)
The separate site idea was partly about different licensing, partly about having different protection on one site versus another. Again, if you're protecting something, I would not think you would want someone else to be able to edit it.
Another wrinkle in licensing, which we could ignore, is: wikipedia:GNU_Simpler_Free_Documentation_License --CurtB 17:52, 6 November 2006 (PST)
There is one minor issue to be aware of with CC licensing: I sometimes copy templates from Wikipedia, and if we used a different license we'd have to be careful not to infringe on Wikipedia's license when copying in this way. I suspect that it's not a problem where there's just a few lines of code, and as long as we don't just copy multiple paragraphs of documentation without modification. Worth asking a lawyer, perhaps.
Of course the same issue applies with any text. However, thanks to the way we're dealing with demarcation (e.g. with the {{Wikipedia}} template), we don't copy much Wikipedia text to Appropedia, so it shouldn't be a problem. --Singkong2005 · talk 22:09, 6 November 2006 (PST)
Perhaps we can have a two-or-more-pronged approach while using the CC license:
  • avoid straight copying of GFDL material where possible
  • make a template notice to put on pages that do use the GFDL license (e.g. templates copied from Wikipedia)
I don't quite understand the advantages of dual licenses... if we dual license all contributions by default, will that enable other wikis such as Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikiversity to take material from here? That would be freer and therefore better, in my mind.
btw, any objection to moving this whole conversation to Appropedia talk:Copyrights?--Singkong2005 · talk 18:51, 10 November 2006 (PST) Moved. -- Singkong2005 · talk 20:08, 20 November 2006 (PST)
A further thought: Now that we are (well, Curt is, anyway) porting lots of material from other sources, it's likely that we will often develop encyclopedic material (sentences, paragraphs, articles) which can be transwikied to Wikipedia. I think this is a very positive thing, and I think it's essential that we can do this. I guess this means that we either use GFDL, or some kind of dual license which allows it be to be reused under either the GFDL or CC license (if I've understood dual licenses correctly). --Singkong2005 · talk 20:15, 20 November 2006 (PST)
As long as your CC-licence allows deriative work and commercial use (such as the CC-BY-SA) - which I would recommend, it is to my knowledge one-way compaitble with the GFDL, so contents can be ported to Wikipedia. --Helge 05:29, 21 November 2006 (PST)

More Reading[edit source]
The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License

Reserving the right to place content in the public domain.[edit source]

Vinay Gupta's thoughts, via email:

Here's an option: can we reserve the right to place articles into the public domain if there is a pressing interest to do so, and otherwise be FDL? Because the .mil and the NGOs can't handle FDL, which is a bloody shame, but how it is. If something on Appropedia suddenly becomes really important, getting it into actual use may mean pushing it into the PD cleanly.

Very interesting. The challenge is, we want to do this and at the same time maintain a license with is consistent with Wikipedia, for example, so we can give them material if it's well enough sourced, and also we can take material from GFDL sites such as Wikipedia when transwikiing is appropriate.

Perhaps the way to do it is to have our version of the copyright agreement include:

  • agreement to the material being moved to the public domain in the case of a pressing interest and lack of alternative solutions,
  • description of who can make this decision, under what circumstances. Board of directors? Consensus by admins (in the case of a dissenting voice, consensus is defined as at least 80% in favor?)
  • an explanation that only content original to Appropedia is subject to this condition, i.e. not Original namespace content from groups like Practical Action (unless they give their own permission), and not substantial quotes from GFDL sources. Now, in theory GFDL sources should be noted (e.g. "this content is taken from Wikipedia") so it should be obvious, as long as we skim through the content to be moved to PD. It would make it a bit of a challenge if we wanted to release a very large number of pages under PD, but I suspect this might be unavoidable. --Chriswaterguy · talk 03:57, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

Public Domain except as noted[edit source]

Thank you to LucasGonzalezSantaCruz for alerting me to this very important website. I lead the Minciu Sodas laboratory for serving and organizing independent thinkers. We have field workers on the ground in Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, India, Palestine, Serbia, Latvia, Lithuania, California and are supporting about 100 endeavors. I strongly recommend using Public Domain except as noted if you are truly interested in sharing. Otherwise, unfortunately, we have to invest ourselves in a separate project that is Public Domain. Please read the licenses, consider the burdens that they place on ethical people, but especially on social networkers who have to do license tracking (and even include an 8 page document in the case of the GNU FDL) and ask yourself, is this the world that we want? and is this the (dysfunctional) culture that we want to impose on other people? Please reconsider! It is sad not to be able to invest in a true commons. Let's learn to share! AndriusKulikauskas 12:45, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

Video and other media[edit source]

If we embed video (or indeed if we embed RSS streams) then that will usually be copyright material.

We could say (rough draft):

Embedded videos and text from external sources, which are displayed in the online wiki but not in offline forms, are not covered by Appropedia's copyright notice, but are subject to the permissions given or license used by the respective copyright holder.

--Chriswaterguy 06:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution :-?[edit source]

Are the mentions of Wikipedia in the text intentional or inadvertent? Is the source of the page correctly attributed to the source? Have not finished reading so it may be explained later in the page. KalleP 07:51, 25 April 2013 (PDT)

Looks to me like that is a mistake - presumably the wording was taken from wikipedia. Joeturner 09:13, 25 April 2013 (PDT)
Yes, definitely a mistake, thanks. Have cleaned it up - hopefully that got everything. --Chriswaterguy 18:43, 19 June 2013 (PDT)

Additional terms[edit source]

I deleted a hidden comment on the subject of contributing texts under the GFDL that include Invariant Sections or Cover Texts. The section of Wikipedia:WP:Copyrights that it referred to no longer exists as such, and I think it's no longer relevant as:

  1. the GFDL is no longer strictly compatible with Appropedia (or Wikipedia), and
  2. the amount of relevant content under the GFDL that we would want to port is much smaller these days, as CC-by-sa is more widely used.

--Chriswaterguy 18:43, 19 June 2013 (PDT)

looking at the section below, would this only be relevant under GFDL and not CC BY SA? If you want to use Appropedia materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow the CC-BY-SA. If you are simply duplicating the Appropedia article, you must follow verbatim copying, as discussed at Wikipedia:WP:Verbatim copying. —The preceding comment was added by Stang99 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 14 December 2017

I believe you are correct. --Lonny (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (PST)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.