IRC office hours/Office hours 2016-10-21

Log

Chat on Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0
21 October 2016
19:00 - 20:00 UTC

[19:01:21] <jsutherland> Welcome to today's office hour!
[19:01:49] <jsutherland> We'll be talking about the same stuff we were talking about on Wednesday - the potential licensing upgrade to Creative Commons 4.0.
[19:03:13] <jsutherland> Logs from last time: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2016-10-19
[19:04:12] <croslof> We're happy to talk more about any of the topics that came up the other day, or answer new questions people have about the potential license upgrade.
[19:05:23] <luis_v> if no one else has a question, I guess I can ask a bit of a summary question: how do you think the discussion is going, to date, on the database language?
[19:06:12] <slaporte> We have a few people from the Wikimedia legal team here — myself, Jacob (jrogers55), and Chuck (croslof), Tarun (tarun), and Leighanna (lmixter)
[19:06:26] <Huon> Isn't there a legal issue with the license change? I always thought 3.0 and 4.0 weren't fully compatible
[19:06:39] <legoktm> is there a concern that adding another license to the mix (GFDL, CC 3.0, now CC 4.0) is going to make reuse even more complex?
[19:07:08] <jsutherland> Huon, legoktm, luis_v, thanks for the questions!
[19:07:45] <jrogers55> luis_v: reasonably, I think. People were a bit confused about how database rights applied, but we've tried to explain a few places why waiving them helps with international consistency. The biggest point of confusion was what "facts" are in a copyright context compared to normal language
[19:08:22] <luis_v> <nod>
[19:11:27] <jsutherland> They're pondering the questions in the room, by the way.
[19:11:34] <tgr> does the DB right waiver affect our ability to import data that's under other free but non-waiving licenses (say ODbL geo data from OSM into a wikitext table)?
[19:11:42] <luis_v> legal IRC is the worst IRC ;)
[19:12:01] <croslof> Huon: Creative Commons has said that the 3.0 and 4.0 licenses are compatible, and we agree. The 3.0 license was designed for people to be able to use CC 3.0 BY-SA works under later versions of the CC licenses, so CC 3.0 BY-SA content can be remixed and combined with CC 4.0 BY-SA content as long as the resulting work is licensed under CC 4.0 BY-SA (or another compatible
[19:12:02] <croslof> license).
[19:12:02] <slaporte> legoktm: That’s a good point to consider. We already have a mixture of other licenses (including CC 4.0) in the media on Wikimedia, so I think the best solution is to present and explain the different licenses as clearly as possible to people.
[19:12:11] <jsutherland> Like buses.
[19:12:22] <slaporte> luis_v: my favorite kind of IRC ;)
[19:12:52] <jrogers55> For those who haven't followed the database conversation, "facts" in terms of copyright law are things like a historical figure's birthdate or the chemical composition of a substance. Those small bits of info aren't copyrightable and can be copied freely, while the regular copyright license still means that someone who copies a whole chunk of article text needs to provide
[19:12:52] <jrogers55> attribution (under either version of the license).
[19:13:06] <mindspillage> luis_v: you mean best IRC.
[19:13:15] <jsutherland> Hi again mindspillage!
[19:13:20] * mindspillage waves
[19:13:21] <luis_v> slaporte, legoktm: note that, as a general matter, complying with 4.0 means you're complying with 3.0, so adding 4.0 to the mix is different from adding ODBL.
[19:13:54] <luis_v> (sorry, that was mostly a clarification for legoktm; I'm sure slaporte already knows that and didn't mean to imply otherwise :)
[19:14:35] <slaporte> luis_v: good point too!
[19:14:58] <slaporte> mindspillage: I don’t think he means the Internal Revenue Code
[19:15:14] * luis_v had to comply with ODBL for a picture of himself from commons a few weeks ago, it was... irritating
[19:15:21] <jrogers55> tgr: the waiver itself doesn't affect importing data. It is possible, though, that you could be in a country with database rights licensed in a way that you, the importer, aren't able to waive, in which case you might run into difficulty in that country.
[19:16:00] <jrogers55> It's hard to be more specific since database rights don't exist at all in some places.
[19:19:04] <legoktm> luis_v: so once we switch to 4.0, people don't really need to worry about 3.0?
[19:20:22] <luis_v> legoktm: I think CC had a FAQ on that, actually? mindspillage may recall better.
[19:20:46] <mindspillage> legoktm: not really. there are a very few corner cases where complying with the 4.0 requirements is not exactly the same, but they are small. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions has differences.
[19:21:38] <tgr> troll question: how does the switch actually work? that always seemed shady with the past license upgrades as well - CC allows you to relicense an adaptation of the work, but that would not affect ast revisions since a text is not an adaptation of itself and CC does not allow relicensing the work itself
[19:21:52] <tgr> *past* revisions
[19:21:53] <legoktm> luis_v, mindspillage: thanks
[19:21:57] <jrogers55> Note that there's some changeover time since articles that haven't been edited will still be under 3.0 after any Terms of Use update.
[19:22:27] <jrogers55> Oh, hey, I totally psychically predicted that one. ;)
[19:22:35] <Huon> mindspillage, aren't you just arguing that CC 4.0 is in fact not fully compatible with 3.0, contradicting croslof, or is the context between your application and croslof's different?
[19:23:06] <mindspillage> Huon: context is different.
[19:23:31] <tgr> so "you might reuse Wikipedia articles under CC 3, or CC 4, please check which case-by-case"?
[19:24:08] <jsutherland> For those just joining: This office hour is about the potential licensing upgrade to Creative Commons 4.0. Several from Wikimedia Foundation Legal are here to answer questions. More context and info is on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[19:24:45] <slaporte> Huron: Being compatible is different from being completely identical — the license itsef has some terms on how you can use material under a later version of the license, and there are ways a license can be compatible by being able to comply with both terms
[19:24:57] <mindspillage> I am mostly trying to let WMF legal answer; I'm just here for pedantry! But, basically, you must comply with both licenses. It is just that compliance with both licenses looks almost exactly the same. In a few cases, the licenses are compatible--they do not have *contradictory* requirements--but you must do a particular thing to comply with one but not the other.
[19:25:44] <jrogers55> tgr: To give more detail, what happens is 1) discussion finishes in favor of 4.0 and TOU gets an update 2) as people contribute to articles, they are licensed under 4.0, while older articles remain under 3.0. only 3) in nearly all cases, this makes no difference to a reuser anyway as the comliance with the two is nearly identical.
[19:25:57] * luis_v also stops putting words in legal's mouth
[19:26:26] <jrogers55> *compliance
[19:28:31] <slaporte> luis_v, mindspillage: Your words are very welcome! :)
[19:30:31] <luis_v> <3
[19:30:33] <luis_v>  ;)
[19:31:41] <multichill> Hey, just rolled in. I still remember the GFDL to cc-by-sa-3.0 conversion. That took (me) quite a bit of effort on Commons. Already talked about that? What is the strategy there?
[19:32:14] <slaporte> multichill: Did you upgrade media as part of that process?
[19:32:33] <tgr> jrogers55: I still don't get how that would work. there needs to be some statement somewhere saying "you can use Wikipedia content under X"
[19:33:27] <tgr> we won't be able to say that for any single X after this upgrade, which seems confusing for reusers (even if the practical effects are minimal, as you say)
[19:33:36] <multichill> slaporte: Yup, we had several criteria and used bots to do all the ones that matched the right criteria
[19:34:04] <tgr> plus, the new ToU includes a waiver for the DB rights, the old one did not
[19:34:44] <slaporte> multichill: The change here to 4.0 is for text, and Commons could continue to allow 3.0 media
[19:35:07] <slaporte> I believe 4.0 is currently the default license in the upload wizard
[19:35:08] <tgr> so adding data to an article after the upgrade / adding data before the upgrade then editing after the upgrade would lead to articles with identical text, both under CC4, but for one the DB rights are waived and for the other they are not
[19:35:11] <multichill> slaporte: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensing_criteria
[19:35:13] <multichill> Found it
[19:35:18] <slaporte> ah thanks
[19:35:21] <slaporte> will take a look
[19:35:42] <jrogers55> tgr: So, first, article by article, we can do things like have the footer reflect the appropriate license, and the TOU already specifically say what attribution is acceptable, so that reuse is pretty easy in practice, even if one isn't certain about the license details.
[19:35:55] <multichill> So question for Commons: Are we going to automagically relicense older uploads from 3.0 to 4.0?
[19:37:05] <multichill> And can we please kill GFDL 1.2 only while we're at it, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiconference_at_globe_075190.JPG is just a trick to prevent re-use......
[19:37:40] <jrogers55> tgr: second, upgrading the TOU allows for us to say that Wikipedia as a collective work is under the 4.0 license with database rights waivers for, say, a data dump of the whole thing.
[19:37:43] <slaporte> The GFDL transition was different because it required a dual license with CC
[19:37:55] <tgr> jrogers55: so article A was created before the upgrade; after the upgrade someone creates article B with the contents "

[currently unanswered]" (or just by copying A over) - how does the footer determine what license to show? derivative work vs. non-original changes is not something that can be grasped by software

[19:38:19] <multichill> ( I'd rather don't do anything at all, but just checking ;-) )
[19:39:13] <slaporte> multichill: this is a bit of a tangent, but is this GFDL 1.2 + CC BY-NC considered acceptable under Commons policy?
[19:40:15] <mindspillage> I will note that the DB rights situation under 3.0 is simply unclear: they're not explicitly licensed, you can argue for or against an implicit right... to the extent anyone would have any database rights at all, which is dubious/unclear.
[19:41:11] <jrogers55> tgr: At the least, B would have a different title than A since they can't occupy the same name space simultaneously. The history would also include the revision in the case of, say, a page merger, and I also can't think of why someone would just make a duplicate article without the intent of adding something new (or with it being quickly deleted as redundant)
[19:41:19] <multichill> Not cool loophole is probably the best description. But I just ran into that one because I was checking some new uploads for 4.0 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:NewFiles
[19:41:33] <tgr> mindspillage: that part does not seem problematic to me, but the proposed ToU adds an extra waiver beyond the CC license: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0/Diff
[19:42:06] <tgr> CC 3 allows you to upgrade, it does not allow you to upgrade and add that waiver for existing data
[19:42:12] <mindspillage> tgr: IMO the waiver is the correct thing to do.
[19:42:34] <tgr> from an ethical POV? sure
[19:42:42] <jrogers55> tgr: CC3 doesn't address database rights at all, so we're free to add the waiver language to the TOU because we think it makes everything work better and more clearly (especially for copying data across projects)
[19:42:59] <mindspillage> It is not clear whether there would have been any database rights in any of the old work; the waiver would clarify that to the extent there were any, they were waived.
[19:43:08] <mindspillage> (in the new work)
[19:47:17] <tgr> jrogers55: so let's say I want to build my EU business on data mined from Wikipedia, and don't want to show attribution because I'm a jerk - for data that was added after the ToU change, I can do that, for data that was added before the ToU change, I probably can't, even if the article containing the data was significantly edited after the ToU change - that seems very confusing
[19:48:10] <luis_v> you certainly could do that pre-change.
[19:48:14] <slaporte> tgr: in that sort of hypothetical, you would probably need a lot of info and the help of an attorney
[19:48:20] <luis_v> (I mean, I'm not WMF's lawyer, bla, bla, bla)
[19:48:32] <luis_v> but given the state of EU copyright law
[19:48:36] <luis_v> I mean, database law
[19:49:00] <luis_v> it would be *very* difficult to claim there was a protectable db right right now.
[19:49:57] <multichill> Like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database is harvested from Wikipedia, but we don't have a clue what license to add. We would like to be cc0, but not sure if we can do that.
[19:50:01] <luis_v> (if there is a protectable DB right now, wikidata is in trouble ;)
[19:50:06] <jrogers55> I think luis_v is right though. It was never really clear you couldn't do that, regardless of what the license or TOU says, and the hope with the waiver is just to make sure there's no ambiguity going forward or that any changes in EU law don't lead to some new right springing up.
[19:51:03] <slaporte> Agree with jrogers55: putting the waiver in the TOU makes it more clear for new contributions
[19:52:27] <slaporte> The state of database rights just makes this all unfortunately complex and inconsistent, and I think the best thing the free culture movement can do is to prevent these rights from interfering with re-use
[19:54:05] <tgr> slaporte: not disagreeing with that, it just seems that we would be pretending that we can prevent them retroactively
[19:55:07] <jsutherland> Five-minute warning. :)
[19:55:09] <nikki> would the proposed change affect people importing statements from wikipedia to wikidata? (sorry if that was already answered, haven't been paying much attention... and I don't have much understanding of licensing anyway)
[19:56:06] <slaporte> nikki: in short, no
[19:56:15] <jrogers55> tgr: it's more that we're pretty sure it already works and has always been working that way, but the waiver eliminates the chance of ambiguity going forward.
[19:58:15] <nikki> ok, good :)
[19:59:39] <tgr> jrogers55: there is a guy in Commons who seems to have built a business model on threatening to sue reusers who err in relatively minor points of CC compliance and then extorts money from them
[20:00:06] <tgr> I haven't seen that happening with DB rights yet but I wouldn't be too suprised if that happened :)
[20:01:01] <jrogers55> tgr: I think it's unlikely in database rights because they don't actually exist in a bunch of countries. Though I sure hope it doesn't even become an issue.
[20:01:04] <tgr> so suggesting that reusers have more rights than they actually do can be dangerous, is what I am trying to say
[20:01:52] <jsutherland> That's 20:00, so technically the end of our office hour.
[20:02:03] <jsutherland> Thanks everyone for coming. :)
[20:02:29] <jsutherland> If you want to get involved further, please leave comments and questions on the consultation itself, through November 8: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[20:02:31] <luis_v> tgr: I really don't think there are rights there to be abused in that way, but (not having read the waiver) it might not be a bad idea to make sure it is drafted to make that clear.
[20:02:32] <slaporte> tgr: let’s chat about this offline when you have a chance!
[20:02:42] <jsutherland> There's something else happening November 8. I forget what.
[20:02:54] <tgr> slaporte: sure
[20:03:27] <jsutherland> Thanks all!
[20:03:34] <tgr> thanks all for the answers (and for working on making it easier to reuse Wikipedia content)!
[20:03:40] <luis_v> (you could draft it to read less like a waiver and more an acknowledgement that no rights exist)
[20:03:48] <slaporte> thanks everyone!