71–80 of 102 posts
"Oh, well, the Wikimedia Foundation has gone ahead and updated our license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, you know, one of the bloody changes in our recent Terms of Use update, which brings the Wikimedia projects up to the latest version of the Creative Commons licenses. Not too shabby, really, and quite in line with the latest Creative Commons stuff, I reckon."
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…
[flagged]
Oh wait, they didn't. No, they instead told the people wanting to build those devices that they were supporting Tivoization and that the only road to compliance was to change the law.[0]
The FSF has a far greater history of telling other people to shove it than they have been trying to work together with possible members of their community.
So many human workyears poured into licences, and still even the most basic things are total moronic.
edit: actually I have no idea why does the CC licence contain that part? Any ideas?
[0] : "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license," - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
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 effects are a function of the magnitude of the change and the scale at which it applies.
In the case of Wikipedia the scale is vast in terms of social impact and so the effect is large even for a small change...in a the-universe-includes-a-lot-of-corner-cases sort of way.
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…
[flagged]
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.
Can I confess something? I know that the Wikipedia licence requires (both the old and the new) linking the CC licence every time I quote something from Wikipedia[0], but I only link the Wikipedia article, and never link the CC licence. So many human workyears poured into licences, and still even the most basic things are total moronic. edit : actually I have no idea why does the CC licence contain that part? Any idea…
Can I confess something? I know that the Wikipedia licence requires (both the old and the new) linking the CC licence every time I quote something from Wikipedia[0], but I only link the Wikipedia article, and never link the CC licence. So many human workyears poured into licences, and still even the most basic things are total moronic. edit : actually I have no idea why does the CC licence contain that part? Any idea…
"You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. "
The license applies when you are reproducing the work or making derivative works. So if you were to fork or mirror Wikipedia in its entirety or even publish a book of curated Wikipedia articles, you would need to give appropriate credit and link to the license.
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…
This is hardly even the craziest thing about the GFDL, but it's one of the most obviously problematic for a wiki.