ArchWiki talk:Copyrights

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GFDL question

Hello, I have some questions about the GFDL and usage. There is another project - Arch Linux Classroom that has teaching materials, class notes and examples. People were wanting to use creative commons license and possibly include information from the Arch Wiki, but I don't believe you can include information in other works piece meal with the GFDL. If this is the case, would it be possible to change the Arch Wiki to use a creative commons license like wikipedia? https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL Meskarune (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, for what I am aware of the legalese, this is not possible.
It should not hinder the plans though. Two examples of piece meal: To use excerpts from the wiki, the usual way is to quote and reference it as source. This is what many blogs, authors of presentations and similar do. Skipping border cases, terms roughly equivalent to the american fair use apply. Example two: Let's say an author prepares a classroom on package management and the script is mainly prepared by shuffling the pacman article to match the anticipated script, and new created content being examples, interactive elements like test questions :) weaved in. In this case the classroom author can decide to co-license the resulting work (script GFDL and examples CC-BY-SA). Does that answer? --Indigo (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. I was discussing having the teaching materials as GFDL but most people do not want to use the license, for reasons that I can't disagree with. I want to avoid having redundant information out there and don't want to break any copy rights. Having open licensing respected is important to me. If it really is not possible to re-license the wiki though I guess that answers my question. Meskarune (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how relicensing the content would solve the problem, since both GFDL and CC are very restrictive about licensing modified content under different license. If the wiki content was licensed under CC, somebody might want to use e.g. GFDL for their project and we'd have the opposite problem. But the "relicensing clause" of the GFDL (section 11.) expired in 2009 anyway... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
CC is compatible with GFDL but GFDL is not compatible with CC, it is only one way, CC content inside GFDL content. Meskarune (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
In the Definitions section of the CC BY-SA license, "Creative Commons Compatible License[s]" are defined as those listed in [1], where I can see only the Free Art License and GPLv3. GFDL is incompatible with GPL in both directions (I assume it applies to any version of GPL), so transitivity won't help.
Then in the Restrictions section subsection b), the Creative Commons Compatible License is the only non-CC license that can be used for an adaptation of a CC-licensed content. Relicensing the other way is currently also impossible, since the FSF needed an extra addendum for the GFDL, which expired in 2009.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Meskarune was likely referring to the simple CC0 and CC-BY licenses.[2] Those work to use the content for GDFL.[3] Those two would, however, not be in the interest of the Arch community at large for its own community content. The CC-BY-SA would be, to protect the collaborative effort of the wiki's contributors, just as it was wikipedia's choice.
But all this is too theoretical in my view. I can't picture a practical situation that may be behind the "most people do not want to use the license, for reasons that I can't disagree with." statement. What would be such a reason? --Indigo (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Or later?

The footer says "1.3 or later" while this page only says "1.3". --Larivact (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter? The footer has always said so. [4] -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be consistent. --Larivact (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
May 6 2012 says content is under "FDL 1.2", July 22 2012 says "FDL 1.3 or later". I suspect new edits violate both licenses, unless authors of all edits prior to July 22 2012 agreed to re-license their work under "FDL 1.3 or later" or MediaWiki edit interface had "FDL 1.2 or later" since ArchWiki has been started, which is not likely to be the case. -- Svito (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)