Vote YES for licensing sanity!

The great licensing update is upon us. Or rather, the voting part of it is. This is the community consultation part of whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation officially chooses to make use of the “Wiki clause” that Richard Stallman so kindly gave us in the GFDL 1.3. (For background see the initial story in Wikipedia Signpost, Benjamin Mako Hill’s post, Richard Stallman’s open letter, Wikipedia’s Exit Permit on LWN.net).

Any user who has made at least 25 edits to any Wikimedia project (before March 15, 2009) is eligible to vote. That is a huge number of people. If you have ever registered an account at any Wikimedia project go check your edit count (special:preferences) because you very well may be eligible to vote.

So get your vote on and let the Wikimedia projects move forth under a sensible license! Yes, a modern license for a modern wiki!

My SVG is kind of whack so if you want to help me get rid of the black box and make the fonts behave, that would be nice, too. ;)

13 April, 2009 • , ,

Comment

1

Yes it renders badly to png. The svg look fine on my computer. I have no idea how to fix it though.

See rendering differences:
commons description page

image preview

Jan Ainali · 13. April 2009, 21:47

2

What about http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments#Are_you_opposing_the_shift_to_CC-BY-SA_3.0.3F_It_seems_a_really_great_idea.?

Calandrella · 13. April 2009, 21:56

3

Note that for users whose 25+ edits were not to meta.mediawiki.org, you need to go to the actual wiki you edited (eg, English Wikipedia) and go via “Vote now” at the top of that wiki. meta.mediawiki.org will tell you you’re ineligible to vote, otherwise.

Mary · 13. April 2009, 21:57

4

@Jan: I love the Swedish version! Nice one :D

@Mary: Thanks, that’s an important point, hopefully not too many people get confused about that.

@Calandrella: At the risk of getting into a long argument, I believe “Erik’s proposal” conforms with the spirit of the license and the spirit of Wikimedia, and moreover it conforms with current best practice.

In CC-BY-SA there is an option to credit, instead of the authors, “another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal)”. You could consider that by supporting this move, Wikimedians are agreeing that it is acceptable to credit the “publishing entity” (Wikipedia) instead of individual authors.

I have virtually never seen anyone credit all authors of a Wikipedia article and this is while under the GFDL, where the license is almost never fully complied with (the license text should be supplied). So considering the community has been happy for years for re-users to live in “illegality” w/r/t GFDL compliance, I don’t see why we should suddenly be so concerned about following CC-BY-SA to the letter.

Finally no alternative has been put forward, and the time window for us to make the switch will close relatively soon. Given the choice between an imperfect migration to CC-BY-SA and no migration at all, I would always recommend the former.

pfctdayelise · 13. April 2009, 23:39

Elsewhere on the web...

Commenting is closed for this article.

list of all posts, ever

find articles by tag

monthly archive

most popular articles

  1. [guest] Rethinking the Top Ten
  2. NLA Innovative Ideas Forum audio/video now available
  3. How to use Gmail to manage high-traffic mailing lists
  4. Top 10 software extensions Wikimedia Commons needs in 2008
  5. Write API enabled on Wikimedia sites!
  6. An alternative term for "User-generated content"
  7. Free MediaWiki hosting offered by Dreamhost Apps
  8. GLAM-WIKI, day one
  9. NaBloPoMo
  10. Reflections on PGIP phase 1

(from the last 30 days)