Talk:Licensing update/Outreach

Table?[edit]

It might be useful to convert the lists into tables with spaces for things like "status" and "contact info". Dragons flight 13:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- sj | help translate |+ 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dkosopedia[edit]

I added it because they list that their content is provided under the GFDL. However, to see the terms you must register. I did so, and when you make an edit they state:

"Please note that all contributions to dKosopedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (see Project:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"

Their copywrite page is unhelpful (they seem to have used the main page as the talk page...) but they do link to The GFDL 1.2 hosted locally.

I'm no expert on this relicensing, but it seems like they have excluded the "or later" clause and so can't actually relicense. Can anyone confirm? --Falcorian 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to migrate to a newer version of GFDL (or CC-SA for that matter) is embedded in the license itself. They don't have to expressly state it elsewhere. -- sj | help translate |+ 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dkosopedia is currently marked up as ineligible due to the lack of an "or later" clause in their licensing terms. Such a clause is not actually necessary: GFDL content, without an explicit versioning provision to the contrary, can be re-used under any available GFDL version published by the FSF. I haven't checked their editing screen, but their footer doesn't specify a version number.--Eloquence 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the logo at the bottom of the site links to the latest GFDL version... though as pointed out elsewhere they may not have realized that it would change with license upgrades when they added it to their skin. -- sj | help translate |+

I knew someone would have the answer! Thanks! --Falcorian 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking Contacts with Wikis[edit]

We are going to need to go through this list, find and contact each administrator, and then track there responses. How should we coordinate this part? Would OTRS tickets be useful to document the interchange and ensure that things are followed up on? —mako ๛ 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A separate OTRS queue for this makes sense, especially as there will be many other general inquiries not specific to an entry on this page. For instance we should contact major wiki-hosts who might host gfdl wikis and find out if they can pass on information to their users. And other email questions that start coming into info@ after a personal appeal goes out should be handled properly. -- sj | help translate |+

unported[edit]

Actually, importing/exporting CC-BY-SA-3.0 is only OK if the other site is using the unported version; otherwise, it's only OK for derivative works (just like with different version numbers). I really hope this distinction gets thrown out of the next version of the licenses... --Tgr 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

"The criteria laid out in GFDL 1.3 are : a massive multiperson collaboration site should have had the material publicly available (presumably for collaboration) prior to November 3, 2008."

Actually, the Nov. 3 date (which should be Nov. 1 anyway) only refers to content first published elsewhere. So if a site started last week under GFDL 1.2 or later, and they only host original, locally (and collaboratively) created material, they are perfectly eligible. (To quote the relevant part of the license: An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.) --Tgr 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA 4.0[edit]

How about CC-BY-SA 4.0? According to en:WP:Compatible license it is not backwards compatible. The table of importing and exporting should include 4.0 anyway. --Vriullop (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA-1.0[edit]

Per en:WP:COMPLIC, CC BY-SA-1.0 is an license compatible with Wikipedia. Why it was marked as Not OK in Importing table? --minhhuy ^(talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]