8 ms·

Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

151 points by skilled 3y ago

npsomaratna 3y ago
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?
- jabiko 3y ago
  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.
- crispyambulance 3y ago
  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-exchange-and-stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0 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.
  - colejohnson66 3y ago
    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.
    - crispyambulance 3y ago
      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?
      - colejohnson66 3y ago
        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.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  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. [0] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/29/stepping-into-the-future-wikimedia-projects-transition-to-creative-commons-4-0-license/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/29/stepping-into-the-futu...
  - creatonez 3y ago
    > It also enables people to fix attribution mistakes within a reasonable time See also: https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-licenses-has-enabled-a-new-breed-of-superpredator-5f6360713299 https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-...
- timmb 3y ago
  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.
  - noirscape 3y ago
    Yeah it's called copyright trolling because of how similar it is to patent trolling. Version 3.0 of the license isn't usually the favored version though since iirc it did include some mitigations on what's allowed for the whole attribution thing. The one that's usually preferred is version 2.0, which has some fairly specific attribution requirements that are easy to mess up.
  - nicbou 3y ago
    I wasted a few hundred issues on those trolls. I wrote about it here: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/abmahnung-creative-commons https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/abmahnung-creative-commons
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  I think v4.0 adds one way compatibility with the GPL v3 too.
- _nalply 3y ago
  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»).
- brudgers 3y ago
  I am not claiming more knowledge. 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.
RicoElectrico 3y ago
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.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  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.
  - prox 3y ago
    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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dessimus 3y ago
    Considering the posts I see on LinkedIn, when occasionally scanning for career opportunities, I'd say most PR/Marketing types think all their stuff is 9+, but everyone else's is sub-4.
- codetrotter 3y ago
  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. […]
aflag 3y ago
What 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?
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use [1]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Terms_of_Use&oldid=240859 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Te...
- akolbe 3y ago
  One reason why the move was delayed for so long is the sui-generis database rights contained in 4.0. See Jimmy Wales answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s The solution adopted was to include a waiver in the Wikimedia Terms of Use: Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use
shellac 3y ago
Doesn't CC 4.0 include database rights too (where applicable)? Not especially significant for wikipedia's content, but a useful addition.
- akolbe 3y ago
  Note that sui-generis database rights are expressly excluded from the WMF version. The Wikimedia terms of use include a specific waiver: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use This is of course to make it easer for commercial re-users to not attribute and share alike. The change in database rights were one of the key reasons why the move to 4.0 was delayed for so long. Without the waiver, it would have put a legal question mark over the data pipeline leading from Wikipedia to Wikidata and thence to Google et al. See Jimmy Wales answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s
mg 3y ago
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?
- detaro 3y ago
  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.
  - mg 3y ago
    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?
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      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.
    - orra 3y ago
      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]'.
      - 3y ago
yankput 3y ago
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 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html edit also see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
- sombremesa 3y ago
  Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.
  - yankput 3y ago
    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
- noirscape 3y ago
  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 to comply with[0]. It's incompatible with literally any other license on the planet as well (it's not a "proper" Free Software License because of crap like invariant sections, which just exists to force the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the GNU projects documentation). There's also such charming issues like "the anti-DRM clause is worded in such a way that you can't store a GFDL file on an encrypted filesystem". It's a really really bad license and a serious competitor for the worst license ever written by the GNU project (even the AGPL isn't this bad). Wikipedia changed it because they kept having to deal with people who pointed out that anyone reproducing Wikipedia content could technically violate it's license, an obviously-on-the-nose issue. The worst part? The GNU/FSF still recommends the fucking GFDL on its website[1] for documentation even though they offered a carveout for the WMF. It's hard to understate just how bad the GDFL is. [0]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html#Documentation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html...
prvc 3y ago
... from 3.0
sacnoradhq 3y ago
TLDR and IANAL, so it's a bunch of noise without key differences.
DeathArrow 3y ago
Same announcement, written by a British: "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."
bmacho 3y ago
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 ideas? [0] : "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license," - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- throwaway202351 3y ago
  Not a lawyer, but doesn't linking to Wikipedia indirectly link to a copy of the license?
- humanistbot 3y ago
  If you're just quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia, especially for non-commercial use or to comment on the article, you are likely engaged in fair use and do not need to follow the copyright license. Same as for a copyright work with the traditional default license, as you have no right to reproduce it or make derivative works, but you can quote from it. The first notice in your link states: "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.

151 points by skilled 3y ago

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?

jabiko 3y ago
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.
crispyambulance 3y ago
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-exchange-and-stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0 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.
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  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.
  - crispyambulance 3y ago
    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?
    - colejohnson66 3y ago
      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.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
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. [0] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/29/stepping-into-the-future-wikimedia-projects-transition-to-creative-commons-4-0-license/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/29/stepping-into-the-futu...
- creatonez 3y ago
  > It also enables people to fix attribution mistakes within a reasonable time See also: https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-licenses-has-enabled-a-new-breed-of-superpredator-5f6360713299 https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-...
timmb 3y ago
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.
- noirscape 3y ago
  Yeah it's called copyright trolling because of how similar it is to patent trolling. Version 3.0 of the license isn't usually the favored version though since iirc it did include some mitigations on what's allowed for the whole attribution thing. The one that's usually preferred is version 2.0, which has some fairly specific attribution requirements that are easy to mess up.
- nicbou 3y ago
  I wasted a few hundred issues on those trolls. I wrote about it here: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/abmahnung-creative-commons https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/abmahnung-creative-commons
RobotToaster 3y ago
I think v4.0 adds one way compatibility with the GPL v3 too.
_nalply 3y ago
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»).
brudgers 3y ago
I am not claiming more knowledge. 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.

RicoElectrico 3y ago

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.

mellosouls 3y ago
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.
- prox 3y ago
  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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dessimus 3y ago
  Considering the posts I see on LinkedIn, when occasionally scanning for career opportunities, I'd say most PR/Marketing types think all their stuff is 9+, but everyone else's is sub-4.
codetrotter 3y ago
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. […]

aflag 3y ago

What 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?

colejohnson66 3y ago
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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use [1]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Terms_of_Use&oldid=240859 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Te...
akolbe 3y ago
One reason why the move was delayed for so long is the sui-generis database rights contained in 4.0. See Jimmy Wales answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s The solution adopted was to include a waiver in the Wikimedia Terms of Use: Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

shellac 3y ago

Doesn't CC 4.0 include database rights too (where applicable)? Not especially significant for wikipedia's content, but a useful addition.

akolbe 3y ago
Note that sui-generis database rights are expressly excluded from the WMF version. The Wikimedia terms of use include a specific waiver: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use This is of course to make it easer for commercial re-users to not attribute and share alike. The change in database rights were one of the key reasons why the move to 4.0 was delayed for so long. Without the waiver, it would have put a legal question mark over the data pipeline leading from Wikipedia to Wikidata and thence to Google et al. See Jimmy Wales answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s

mg 3y ago

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?

detaro 3y ago
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.
- mg 3y ago
  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?
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    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.
  - orra 3y ago
    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]'.
    - 3y ago

yankput 3y ago

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

sombremesa 3y ago
Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.
- yankput 3y ago
  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
noirscape 3y ago
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 to comply with[0]. It's incompatible with literally any other license on the planet as well (it's not a "proper" Free Software License because of crap like invariant sections, which just exists to force the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the GNU projects documentation). There's also such charming issues like "the anti-DRM clause is worded in such a way that you can't store a GFDL file on an encrypted filesystem". It's a really really bad license and a serious competitor for the worst license ever written by the GNU project (even the AGPL isn't this bad). Wikipedia changed it because they kept having to deal with people who pointed out that anyone reproducing Wikipedia content could technically violate it's license, an obviously-on-the-nose issue. The worst part? The GNU/FSF still recommends the fucking GFDL on its website[1] for documentation even though they offered a carveout for the WMF. It's hard to understate just how bad the GDFL is. [0]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html#Documentation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html...

prvc 3y ago

... from 3.0

sacnoradhq 3y ago

TLDR and IANAL, so it's a bunch of noise without key differences.

DeathArrow 3y ago

Same announcement, written by a British: "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."

bmacho 3y ago

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 ideas? [0] : "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license," - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

throwaway202351 3y ago
Not a lawyer, but doesn't linking to Wikipedia indirectly link to a copy of the license?
humanistbot 3y ago
If you're just quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia, especially for non-commercial use or to comment on the article, you are likely engaged in fair use and do not need to follow the copyright license. Same as for a copyright work with the traditional default license, as you have no right to reproduce it or make derivative works, but you can quote from it. The first notice in your link states: "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.