Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#11

Post by colejohnson66 »

crispyambulance wrote: post #6
npsomaratna wrote: post #2

Could someone more knowledgeable explain what the practical effect of this license change is? As far as I can see, there isn't much of a difference?

The practical reasons are almost entirely about legal minutia. It opens up some possibilities, like being able to seamlessly use OTHER CC-BY-SA 4.0 content, but there won't be any concrete tangible difference to readers. A while back stackoverflow went to CC-BY-SA 4.0, and bunch of people got into a snit about it: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchan... No one could ever explain what the actua…

The issue was that StackExchange relicensed (without permission) all previous contributions. Their license (currently) says users grant them the ability to use their contributions under CC BY-SA 4.0 with no "or later". I'm pretty sure the previous one (for 3.0) was the same. StackExchange had no legal right to relicense those contributions.

Wikimedia got it right by putting "3.0 or later" in their terms of use (TOU). This allowed them to _legally_ claim all old contributions are available under 4.0. They're still also available under 3.0, but that's a minor detail.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#13

Post by prox »

mellosouls wrote: post #10
RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

Agree. "We're excited to announce this hum-drum thing" is an annoying PR cliche probably popularized by dead-eyed corporate drones to the extent it's now a part of every formulaic announcement. I'm sure in some cases the writer thinks they'll get in trouble with the boss if they aren't sufficiently unctuous but it's annoying to read again and again. Perhaps there is an opportunity here to establish an "Announcement E…

I am excited you made such an excellent comment! It positively affected my thinking. I am also glad to announce I will recommend this comment to other people.

Taking this out of context really puts the spotlight of the weirdness of this type of copy.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#14

Post by codetrotter »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

It’s so formulaic, that even ChatGPT will express itself similarly.

Me: Write a press release stating that Wikipedia is announcing the update to our license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0

ChatGPT: […] Wikipedia, the world's largest online encyclopedia, is thrilled to announce a significant update to its licensing terms. Effective immediately, Wikipedia will adopt the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. This change represents Wikipedia's ongoing commitment to open knowledge and collaboration. […]

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#15

Post by detaro »

mg wrote: post #12

What does attribution mean in the context of Wikipedia where each page is created by many authors, most of them pseudonymous, many of them anonymous?

Nothing says that attribution has to be the legal names. The usual approach is that you attribute the exact page, for which the edit history with the individual contributors is available.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#16

Post by mg »

detaro wrote: post #15
mg wrote: post #12

What does attribution mean in the context of Wikipedia where each page is created by many authors, most of them pseudonymous, many of them anonymous?

Nothing says that attribution has to be the legal names. The usual approach is that you attribute the exact page, for which the edit history with the individual contributors is available.

A link is a dynamic thing. If you print or let users download a PDF of a Wikipedia page and for the attribution you link to a page with the edit history, what happens when the link is shut down or repurposed to show something unrelated or changed so that it shows a contributor list which is not in line with reality?

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#17

Post by 3pt14159 »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

I find it kinda exciting that there is one global license. People have different interests and different tastes. Software developers may find it very exciting if Rust improved compile time by 8x for a certain, common access pattern even though, in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter.

Just let people have fun with things.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#18

Post by computerfriend »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if some Wikimedia people find this kind of thing exciting.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#19

Post by Karunamon »

mg wrote: post #16
detaro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing says that attribution has to be the legal names. The usual approach is that you attribute the exact page, for which the edit history with the individual contributors is available.

A link is a dynamic thing. If you print or let users download a PDF of a Wikipedia page and for the attribution you link to a page with the edit history, what happens when the link is shut down or repurposed to show something unrelated or changed so that it shows a contributor list which is not in line with reality?

The official citation links provided on the articles give you something like "so and so, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".

That has to be sufficient. No way is anyone expected to credit the possibly thousands of pseudonyms, IP addresses, and automated bots that have ever touched an article.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#20

Post by yonatan8070 »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

"we are very bored today to show you our new license, cc by-sa 4"
Post reply on HN