Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
diff.wikimedia.org
Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#2Could 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?
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#3Why 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.
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#4Could 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 think that's pretty much detailed in the "Why did we update our license to CC BY-SA 4.0?" section of the article.
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#5What were the challenges for the migration? Do the Wikipedia editors and authors transfer their works to Wikimedia when they publish it and so wikimedia can change the license as it pleases? If so, was the main difficulty just convincing the executives it was a good idea?
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#6Could 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 actual problem was that they had with the change. They admitted there wasn't any practical difference but still were red-hot angry about it. Some people are weird about licenses.
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#7What were the challenges for the migration? Do the Wikipedia editors and authors transfer their works to Wikimedia when they publish it and so wikimedia can change the license as it pleases? If so, was the main difficulty just convincing the executives it was a good idea?
The TOU says the authors still hold the copyright to their contributions, but now says it must be licensed to Wikimedia under CC BY-SA 4.0 or later (instead of 3.0 or later).
From [0]:
> 7(h): Modifications or additions to material that you reuse: When modifying or making additions to text that you have obtained from a Project Website, you agree to license the modified or added content under CC BY-SA 4.0 or later (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the specific Project edition or feature).
> ...
The previous version[1] said the same, but called out CC BY-SA 3.0 or later:
> 7(h): Modifications or additions to material that you re-use: When modifying or making additions to text that you have obtained from a Project website, you agree to license the modified or added content under CC BY-SA 3.0 or later (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the specific Project edition or feature).
> ...
[0]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use
[1]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Te...
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#8Doesn't CC 4.0 include database rights too (where applicable)? Not especially significant for wikipedia's content, but a useful addition.
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#9Could 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 is allowable. It also enables people to fix attribution mistakes within a reasonable time, which is important to help address simple mistakes without the need for overly aggressive copyright enforcement demands.
This comment is based on the "Stepping into the future: Wikimedia projects’ transition to Creative Commons’ 4.0 license" article from 29 June 2023 by Stephen LaPorte, Jacob Rogers and Shaun Spalding [0], and may be shared and modified, with attribution, under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
#10Why 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 Excitement Scale" from 1 to 10 where 10 is - say - ChatGPT or the iPhone and 1 is a license change.
This can be printed with the announcement of being excited, then the reader can easily judge for themselves whether to peruse further.