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

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#21

Post by timmb »

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?

I don't know if relevant for Wikipedia, but in CC BY-SA 3.0 where the entire licence was invalidated if you made a mistake with the attribution.

I was reading of an exploit where an organisation is publishing photos under the 3.0 licence, searching for minor infractions and then extorting random bloggers and businesses for infringement. I believe the 4.0 licence addresses this by allowing users to fix a faulty attribution within a reasonable time.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#22

Post by orra »

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?

You're overthinking this. If you link to the Wikipedia page, you have reasonable certainty the link will be valid for a decent length of time. If I distribute something now, the link doesn't have to be valid in 20 years time.

What if in 20 years time the link no longer works and I'm still distributing the content? Then I'll update the link, or link to the web archive. If for some reason neither of these is possible, it might even be reasonable to attribute more generally 'unknown wikipedia contributors, formerly documented at [old url]'.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#24

Post by _nalply »

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?

They have some sources already using version 4. They had to upgrade or not use these sources (see ShareAlike: «If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original»).

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#25

Post by martin_a »

orra wrote: post #22
mg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're overthinking this. If you link to the Wikipedia page, you have reasonable certainty the link will be valid for a decent length of time. If I distribute something now, the link doesn't have to be valid in 20 years time. What if in 20 years time the link no longer works and I'm still distributing the content? Then I'll update the link, or link to the web archive. If for some reason neither of these is possible,…

> you have reasonable certainty the link will be valid for a decent length of time.

Welcome to the German Wikipedia where stuff gets deleted quicker than you can look up what a Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänspatent even is.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#26

Post by _Algernon_ »

3pt14159 wrote: post #17
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.

I doubt the person who wrote Wikipedia's blog post here "had fun with things".

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#27

Post by endisneigh »

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.

Ever consider that it is exciting for someone to have completed this work successfully? Would you also say it’s strange for someone to be excited that they’re done with class, or finished an exam, or successfully closed an old bug?

A better question is why everyone has to be so negative.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#28

Post by GuB-42 »

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.

A change to, say, a non-commercial license would have been very exciting.

But yeah, here, it is just a technical update that may be exciting only to specialized lawyers. But we are on a website where we get excited by some tool we never heard about before being rewritten in Rust, so...

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#29

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#30

Post by yankput »

I still love how years ago, Stallman basically added a backdoor to GNU FDL just for wikipedia (and similar wikis) just for the few months when Wikipedia was migrating the license.

It worked though

to elaborate… wikipedia used to be GNU Free Document License, which is a terrible license. But there was no way to easily migrate to CC, as you would need to contact all the authors and get agreement.

So FSF used the “or later” clause to make a new version of FDL that said “these few months, wikis can migrate from this license to CC”. The new version of the license was made just for wikipedia, just so they could migrate to CC.

Here, part “relicensing”

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html

edit also see

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html

Post reply on HN