Wikinews/Licensure Poll/WNL2/Oppose

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. NGerda 17:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC) - Too much restriction on content.Reply[reply]
    What restrictions? Dan100
  2. IlyaHaykinson 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I would support this licence if a new version was issued with the following changes: removal of restriction to print and digital media only (what? no broadcast?); definitions for terms like Original Authors, Contributors, Copyright Holders, Copyright Owner, and Wikinews; the removal of the requirement for redistributing the license for derivative works (to make it more like CC-BY than CC-BY-SA), and the removal of the confusing prohibition on using the name of Wikinews for promotion while giving credit to Wikinews. In short, please see Wikinews/WIKINEWS LICENSE PROPOSAL : WNL 0.3 for my idea.Reply[reply]
    The promotion issue is a pretty standard BSD-esque clause; it prevents the case where a possibly inferior derivative work is distributed, the clause prevents the distributors of this derivative from saying that Wikinews endorses it, since otherwise the inferior quality of the derivative work maybe associated with Wikinews. Dysprosia 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This makes sense for software, where you can easily have an "inferior" version. However for text, audio and video quality is subjective and derivative works should be credited back to Wikinews in at least the first generation. -- IlyaHaykinson 12:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd disagree (consider a derivative work with severely skewed POV for example, which uses the name of Wikinews to promote it). But anyway, I didn't exactly want to create debate, but to elucidate any confusion. Dysprosia 07:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. Not defined clearly, not thorough enough. --Mrmiscellanious 13:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (en.wikinews)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. The rationale for adopting a Wikinews-specific license is not convincing. Specifically, the following issues are problematic:
      • The license appears to contain no clauses for internationalization or updates of the license text, unlike recent version of Creative Commons. This is especially problematic as, as currently written, the license is already in conflict with some local laws: disclaimers of liability are limited by locally applicable law, for example. It also contains no severability clause which would ensure that the entire license remains valid in case individual clauses are found not to be.
      • The license appears to contain very few definitions. The Creative Commons licenses are very clear on what the terms used therein mean, reducing the risk of ambiguity in court decisions.
      • The Creative Commons effort is very carefully adapting its licenses to international jurisdictions. Keep in mind that the licensor is operating under the jurisdiction of their home country. The CC concept is that you have many different international versions ("iCommons licenses"), and you can freely switch between them to adapt to local variances of law. While, from the above, it appears to be the intention of those promoting a WNL to ensure international usability, as demonstrated, no sufficient forethought seems to have been put into these matters.
      • Writing a legally safe license is hard and requires intense study and knowledge of the peculiarities of different jurisdictions. I find it unlikely that, without legal advice, we will be able to develop a secure license that fits our needs within a reasonable timeframe. I see no good reasons to duplicate the effort made by the Creative Commons groups around the world to develop legally sane and simple licenses, specifically now that CC-BY supports a designated entity clause. I strongly suggest that those who want to develop a Wikinews license should at least support dual-licensing content under CC-BY.--Eloquence 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Severance clause are automatic in contracts. It's mainly written as a matter of information. I agree with you that it would be better to include it, and I will add it to the final disclaimer. It's very simple to do : people will be better informed and judges will more easily understand it. --soufron 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • At least in German law, there's nothing automatic about it; see e.g. §139 BGB of the civil code. It depends on the intentions of the parties to the agreement. However, for the specific situation we're talking about, I agree that the severability clause is not strictly necessary, but mostly a matter of convenience. While you're at it, please also add upgradability as an element to the license.--Eloquence 23:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        This option was not initially added to this poll. Please feel free to add it if you think it should be included. - Amgine 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Brent Dax (Brent Dax 16:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)) — I cannot in good faith support continued license fragmentation.Reply[reply]
  6. It's too much complicated for us to build a license. --DaB. 13:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Schaengel89 @me 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Kaldari 15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC). Too restrictive to justify license fragmentation.Reply[reply]
  9. -- 19:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]