Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#91

Post by crispyambulance » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 5:49 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #11

crispyambulance wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

I still don't get what these nuances ACTUALLY means for someone who might have contributed when the TOU was 3.0 and then suddenly an effectively identical license gets applied "without permissions" (4.0), and now there's a problem? How?

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#92

Post by colejohnson66 » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #91

colejohnson66 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

I still don't get what these nuances ACTUALLY means for someone who might have contributed when the TOU was 3.0 and then suddenly an effectively identical license gets applied "without permissions" (4.0), and now there's a problem? How?

Most people (myself included) had no issue with the premise. The issue comes from StackExchange having a (then recent) history of starting to ignore their community. That has continued even to today.

Basically, people aren’t necessarily upset about them relicensing, but that there’s been no discussions with the community about these things. This was just another nail in the wound, and people got upset.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#93

Post by garaetjjte » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:48 PM UTC

noirscape wrote: post #52

yankput wrote: post #30

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 la…

Pretty much the one time the GNU Project conceded anything to a different organization. Still very strange. Also, for anyone wondering - don't use the GFDL, it's one of the worst written licenses out there. Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous…

>snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation

Eh, wouldn't that be fair use use anyway?

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#94

Post by hedora » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 7:04 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #87

seabass-labrax wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your detailed reply. > it is (theoretically) trivially easy to work around - just contract out your modifications, have the contractor keep the copyright and act as the only user of the software with an indefinite license Would this not require the contractor to comply with section 13? At this point, you would be paying the contractor for ensuring legal compliance instead of doing this yourself, which i…

> If you had a remote MIDI sequencer that users could connect their musical instrument to, it would almost certainly have something like a Web interface as well... Not at all. There are tons of MIDI devices which communicate over MIDI, and which don't have another network interface. Most electronic keyboards fall into this category, for example. > MIDI isn't by itself an internet protocol, which I'm sure you already…

Here is the text of section 13. I think you are badly misreading it:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

First of all, it says "your version" has to offer users the ability to download the source. Clearly, a sticker with a URL next to the midi jack would comply. However, it only applies to remote users, so your example is already limited to the corner case where they are connecting to a remote midi device through a network port that doesn't have a UI.

Even then, the license says "if your version supports such interaction" which could be construed to be referring to the phrase that follows the disclaimer instead of the one that precedes it.

Even if you read all of those things in the "you have to serve source code over the network that serves the remote midi protocol" way, the clause "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software" clearly implies that you could (say) offer it over port 443 on some server you run, or via a github link.

In fact, that clause pretty clearly means that only distributing it through some obscure MIDI extension would not put you in compliance with the license.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#95

Post by hedora » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

noirscape wrote: post #52

yankput wrote: post #30

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 la…

Pretty much the one time the GNU Project conceded anything to a different organization. Still very strange. Also, for anyone wondering - don't use the GFDL, it's one of the worst written licenses out there. Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous…

Which part of the GFDL requires you include a copy of the entire license if you want to hyperlink a page that contains GFDL content?

A quick skimming suggests that it does not require that. In fact, it only talks about distribution of content, not linking:

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

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#96

Post by yankput » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

elAhmo wrote: post #62

yankput wrote: post #30

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 la…

Maybe I do not understand this fully, but this sounds like effectively bypassing the licence to do something which wasn't originally intended, or what the contributors or authors didn't agree to. Does this put other licences at risk? What if someone releases something under a licence, and there is a new version that is less or more permissive, allowing the original author's intention to 'vetoed'?

It does put all “or later” clauses licenses at risks, yes

If you have “GPLv2 or later”, FSF is then overtaken by Microsoft and makes “GPLv4 is allowing Microsoft to use your code in Windows” then it’s what it is, your code can now be used by Microsoft

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#97

Post by yankput » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

sombremesa wrote: post #48

yankput wrote: post #30

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 la…

Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.

I am 50:50 on it

On one hand it’s changing a license to do something else than intended, and the “you can switch but only in the year 2008” is kind of weird

On the other hand… eh, wikipedia is better for it, and I doubt people really wanted to contribute under the horrible document license

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#98

Post by creatonez » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 10:36 PM UTC

Mordisquitos wrote: post #9

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?

With 3.0 there were multiple versions of the licence, which varied depending on the country in which they were used. With 4.0, a single licence is applicable worldwide, with official translations in over 30 languages. This eliminates the need for different ported versions of the licence with changed language tailored for specific jurisdictions. Also, it clarifies that linking to a webpage with attribution information…

> It also enables people to fix attribution mistakes within a reasonable time

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#99

Post by MichaelZuo » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #80

noirscape wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much the one time the GNU Project conceded anything to a different organization. Still very strange. Also, for anyone wondering - don't use the GFDL, it's one of the worst written licenses out there. Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous…

GFDL is an especially bad license for a wiki because, under a strict reading of the license, editors are obligated to treat any section of a page titled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" as append-only. Did a vandal create a section with that name and fill it with nonsense? Too bad! License says you can't touch it. This is hardly even the craziest thing about the GFDL, but it's one of the most obviously problematic…

This sounds almost like a joke... are you sure GFDL requires that?

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#100

Post by duskwuff » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #99

duskwuff wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GFDL is an especially bad license for a wiki because, under a strict reading of the license, editors are obligated to treat any section of a page titled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" as append-only. Did a vandal create a section with that name and fill it with nonsense? Too bad! License says you can't touch it. This is hardly even the craziest thing about the GFDL, but it's one of the most obviously problematic…

This sounds almost like a joke... are you sure GFDL requires that?

Yes. Section 4 ("Modifications"), point K:

> K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", [anyone copying a modified version of the document must] Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.