Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This consultation is now closed. Thank you for your input!

This discussion started on 5 October 2016, and ran until 8 November 2016.

The Legal team may answer remaining questions in the coming weeks.

(Help with translations!)

We are asking for your input on a proposed change to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, namely to use the latest version of the Creative Commons license. This proposal will be available for at least the next thirty days (until November 8, 2016).

The copyright license on the Wikimedia projects makes it easy for everyone to access, share, and remix the material on our site. We've prepared a note explaining some of the changes for Wikimedia in the 4.0 version of the Creative Commons license.

To get involved, browse the comments made below and participate there.

If you have additional questions or thoughts, please click here to join the discussion below. We look forward to your comments.

This process is not a vote.

If you just wish to voice your agreement, but do not wish to make a long comment, please add it here: support, opposition, neutral.

(Help with translations!)

Creative Commons 4.0 upgrade

Frequently asked questions

(Help with translations!)

How will this affect Wikipedia?[edit]

Wikipedia will continue to be available freely with attribution and sharealike requirements. Wikipedia is currently available under the 3.0 version of the license, and this upgrade will mean that new additions are submitted under the 4.0 version. People who use content from Wikipedia will continue to be able to provide attribution as currently described in the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

What is different between Creative Commons 3.0 versus 4.0?[edit]

The license will continue to have the same basic requirements—providing appropriate credit and distribute remixes under the same license.

In the legal note, we highlight some of the most important differences for Wikimedia, including new official translations, increased readability, a revised description of the attribution requirement, an opportunity to correct license violations, and more. Creative Commons has also published a comparison of the changes in the license.

How can we "upgrade" the license?[edit]

If we choose to amend the Terms of Use, the 4.0 version of the license will apply to new edits submitted to Wikimedia projects. After a page has been edited, it can be reused under the latest version of the license according to the attribution requirements in the Terms of Use. Revisions of pages before the upgrade to the 4.0 version will continue to be available under the version 3.0 of the license.

Was the 3.0 version available in other languages?[edit]

CC BY-SA 3.0 did not have official translations of the unported license text, although it had translated license deeds and a number of international ports. The ported versions of CC BY-SA 3.0 were substantially similar to each other, but included some legal modifications to reflect the local jurisdiction. Creative Commons' new license translation policy will allow them to set official translations of the version 4.0 license. CC BY-SA 4.0 International is intended to be legally effective everywhere.

How will this affect English Wikinews and other projects that don't currently use CC BY-SA 3.0?[edit]

English Wikinews may upgrade to CC BY 4.0 International, without adopting the version 3.0 of the license. Projects may continue to opt-out of the default license where appropriate.

How will this affect Wikidata (which currently uses CC0)?[edit]

Wikidata will continue to use CC0 for contributions, which will make it easy to add and share factual data on the project.

Why do the proposed amendment to the terms of use mention sui generis database rights?[edit]

CC BY-SA 4.0 International includes new requirements for database rights, in jurisdictions where those rights exist. To avoid introducing new ambiguity around the requirements for factual contributions of data sets, which may be covered by database rights in certain jurisdictions, we've proposed waiving these rights under the license. This is outlined in more detail in the legal note.

Can I use version 4.0 for images and other non-text contributions?[edit]

Yes! You can upload media to Wikimedia Commons under the 4.0 version of the license.

Why does Wikipedia use a "sharealike" license like CC BY-SA?[edit]

The sharealike clause in the CC BY-SA license helps promote the values of free culture. It asks users to continue to share their improvements and modifications to works that are offered to them freely under the Creative Commons license.

If the license were just CC BY (without a sharealike clause), people would be able to use content from the Wikimedia projects for any purpose, but if they made changes, they could put those changes under additional copyright restrictions and forbid others to use them. The ideal is to make the world's knowledge available for everyone, and using a license that makes sure contributions to that knowledge remain available for everyone helps work toward that goal.

When deciding which license to use, the Wikimedia community for the most part chose CC BY-SA instead of BY because the CC BY-SA license helps promote the values of free culture, as described in Creative Commons's statement of intent for the attribution-sharealike licenses. For historical reasons, the CC BY-SA license was also chosen for its compatibility with Wikipedia's previous GNU Free Document License. Some other projects, such as English Wikinews, choose to use the use the CC BY license.

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.

General support and opposition[edit]

Comments about this process[edit]

Agree, the archiving has made the discussion nonsensical. This page is not an appropriate record. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't use the notice board for that, we are seeing a lot of comments from who do not understand the question... at least are this only visible for Autoconfirmed?? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    @R.T.Argenton: Per the Wikimedia Terms of use (section 16), this is necessary to inform our users of this proposed change and to allow for it to be debated in this sort of format. The Legal Team aims to answer some of the key questions and concerns people have. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    And regardless of any formal rules, we should allow any user who is autoconfirmed on any of the projects, even if they aren't here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think wikipedia should do a poll/vote popup. That way, a large number of people can give quick feedback without spending time on commenting. -Meg
  • This discussion is nonsensical in terms of ALL Wikimedia content (it would make sense in specific Wikimedia projects). Note that some project used so far compatibility in licenses to import content, we can't therefore re-license any of those works by absentia (previous attempts have at best resulted in a dual licensing situation) that at later time if enough personal or economic motivation exist can come to bite back Wikimedia. --109.49.141.100 10:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Sinct this migration is explicitly permitted by the current license, we can do this for authors who oppose, let alone for those who don't express any opinion; and we want to ensure the free reusage content from any wiki on any other wiki, so they must all have compatable licenses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Most people commenting here seem misinformed, not knowing a thing about what these licenses are about. Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e)
    • Agree: The poor quality of the feedback is the result of the poor quality of the outreach. All our policies start with an 'in a nutshell' section. This one starts off saying the plan is "to use the latest version of the Creative Commons license". This is clearly confusing a large fraction of the people providing feedback, who think this is a bigger change than from 3.0 to 4.0 of the same basic license; better wording is needed. Maybe change that wording to: "to continue to use the latest version of the Creative Commons license by making these changes)". Likewise, the announcement page say, "We are considering upgrading the default copyright license for Wikimedia to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0."; no mention of what we're moving from. I can see that legal tried - they made a FAQ, after all. But a bit more QA is needed when you know you're going to impact many, many people.--Elvey (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, these licenses are good. They can really give some hopes and respects to our common writers who dedicated themselves into daily creations and identifications of knowledge in wiki-group, especially when facing some new-coming and new-forming knowledge of or accross multiple-discplinary knowledge, which haven't been assessed just as right or wrong. They have this kind of enthusiasms in creative writing. We need to leave more spaces for their professional expressions in their fields. And, some volunteers in system can together make their writings better. They believed in Wiki. This is our honour. Creative Commons License 4's coming, I think, should be an all-inclusive evolution - respecting the past, giving some portals connecting the past licences-channels systermatically and try to protect some original creative ideas in good usages. Creative commons can write down them in Wiki - that's our joyfulness, no matter what types if a little bit clear, we can try to help them, collect some new and modify them in a new system, rather than excluding them. Another thing, we can try to understand more 'special personilities and habits' of our diverse writers in different fields. They may have very different voices and some strong abilities than normal, and they are willing to be heard. If losing them, it's the lacks of oursleves. Open more doors, worlds will be much larger than we thought. That's my personal comment. Hoping fine! Jason M. C., Han (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not a comment about this process. (And if it wasn't for the spelling errors, I'd think it was a machine translation.)--Elvey (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]