Questions regarding CC 2.5

[mattheweast]

@Henrik:
Just a small note here -
The forums and the udsf are under the same license, Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, and are not public domain.

Can we clarify this a bit? (Tell me if another thread is appropriate). The forums as far as I can see don't have any licensing notice on them, and the same is true of the Storage Center (except that on the "History" page of the latter, it refers to the Creative Commons Public Domain).

I would think making this a bit more obvious, by putting a link on each page, is quite important. Without a link, the default position is that all the material is copyright of the author, and copying it (for example by putting it on the Storage Center) is breaking that copyright.

If the material on the forum/Storage Center is licensed as CC BY, then it is going to make it very difficult to use the material on the wiki unfortunately. I don't think that we can realistically have an attribution license on the wiki, because the guides are collaborative, and many pages have had several hundreds of edits from different users. Attributing each of those users when making derivative works is simply not practical, and sometimes impossible (such as where the page has had more than 99 edits, the wiki software loses the page history).

Matt

[kassetra]

Can we clarify this a bit? (Tell me if another thread is appropriate). The forums as far as I can see don't have any licensing notice on them, and the same is true of the Storage Center (except that on the "History" page of the latter, it refers to the Creative Commons Public Domain). The forums and the UDSF are both under this license. We state it in the guidelines that everyone creating an account agrees to follow. The UDSF could probably put it in a more prominent location.

I would think making this a bit more obvious, by putting a link on each page, is quite important. Without a link, the default position is that all the material is copyright of the author, and copying it (for example by putting it on the Storage Center) is breaking that copyright. All material that gets moved to the UDSF is done at the sole discretion of the original author. The team members ask the authors if it would be ok for them to put it on the UDSF. If the author agrees, the information is archived by the team members.

If the material on the forum/Storage Center is licensed as CC BY, then it is going to make it very difficult to use the material on the wiki unfortunately. I don't think that we can realistically have an attribution license on the wiki, because the guides are collaborative, and many pages have had several hundreds of edits from different users. Attributing each of those users when making derivative works is simply not practical, and sometimes impossible (such as where the page has had more than 99 edits, the wiki software loses the page history).

Matt I'm sorry you feel that way.

I am moving these two posts to a better location.

[kassetra]

I would think making this a bit more obvious, by putting a link on each page, is quite important. Without a link, the default position is that all the material is copyright of the author, and copying it (for example by putting it on the Storage Center) is breaking that copyright.

Would it be possible then for you to do the same on wiki.ubuntu.com and help.ubuntu.com? I don't see the license linked on each page...

[KingBahamut]

I would aggree with the more visibility aspect of the lisc in this case. Many arent sure or aware of that when they add the documentation. If I were a new user I would have no idea what the lisc is, its not clearly defined.

[mattheweast]

The forums and the UDSF are both under this license. We state it in the guidelines that everyone creating an account agrees to follow. The UDSF could probably put it in a more prominent location.

I see, well that is obviously fine in terms of the contributor knowing what licence they agree to post under. However a link (maybe in the howto area?) would assist people reading in knowing the terms on which they are free to take material.

All material that gets moved to the UDSF is done at the sole discretion of the original author. The team members ask the authors if it would be ok for them to put it on the UDSF. If the author agrees, the information is archived by the team members.

Ah, if that is the case then there is no problem. A similar approach would seem sensible for using forum-based material on the Ubuntu wiki.


I'm sorry you feel that way.

For some reason you keep saying that to me - I assure you that what I said had nothing to do with how I feel. It is just technically and practically impossible to use an attribution licence on the Ubuntu wiki. Even if it were, it isn't my decision, so my feelings are irrelevant.

Would it be possible then for you to do the same on wiki.ubuntu.com and help.ubuntu.com? I don't see the license linked on each page...
The licence for the wiki hasn't been decided yet, we're still working on it. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiLicensing. As for help.ubuntu.com, each document has the license in an appendix, and states it in the introduction.

Thanks for your quick reply.

Matt

[kassetra]

I would aggree with the more visibility aspect of the lisc in this case. Many arent sure or aware of that when they add the documentation. If I were a new user I would have no idea what the lisc is, its not clearly defined.

I'm sure we can find a way to display it. :)

[kassetra]

The licence for the wiki hasn't been decided yet, we're still working on it. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiLicensing. As for help.ubuntu.com, each document has the license in an appendix, and states it in the introduction.

Thanks for your quick reply.

Matt

Perhaps you should make that link visible on every page so that people reading pages from wiki.ubuntu.com would know where each of those pages stand from a licensing standpoint.

[mattheweast]

Perhaps you should make that link visible on every page so that people reading pages from wiki.ubuntu.com would know where each of those pages stand from a licensing standpoint.

Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear - we haven't decided what the licence will be yet for the wiki documentation. When it is sorted out, we will add a link to each page, and a licensing agreement each time a page is saved.

[kassetra]

Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear - we haven't decided what the licence will be yet for the wiki documentation. When it is sorted out, we will add a link to each page, and a licensing agreement each time a page is saved.

No, you were clear. I meant in the meantime, how would someone know that you were even deciding on the license unless they happened to find that link? I was suggesting you include the link on all of the pages, as you would do with the final license. Perhaps in the footer.

[mattheweast]

No, you were clear. I meant in the meantime, how would someone know that you were even deciding on the license unless they happened to find that link? I was suggesting you include the link on all of the pages, as you would do with the final license. Perhaps in the footer.

That's a pretty good idea. If the Community Council needs more time to resolve the issue, I'll definitely propose doing that.

Although, people should know that we are deciding on the license, because I sent an email to everyone who has ever edited the wiki with the proposal and inviting comments. But, your idea would make ultra sure everyone knows what is going on, especially newcomers.

[KingBahamut]

The issue here is compatibility between any resource of Ubuntu Information and the Wiki. If you are successful in achieving a fully open PD liscense, then it creates compatibility issues between those other resources (the UDSF, the Forum, the Official Wiki, and any other resource) with this compliancy problem, how do you in affect choose to remedy this situation? Liscenses are incompatible in their current state from what I know, and if you go to fully open PD liscense with no attrib, it still makes them incompatible? Or is the solution on your part a more larger element of exerted control, just as Henrik made as a statement in his post on the UDSF Poll.

[mattheweast]

The issue here is compatibility between any resource of Ubuntu Information and the Wiki. If you are successful in achieving a fully open PD liscense, then it creates compatibility issues between those other resources (the UDSF, the Forum, the Official Wiki, and any other resource) with this compliancy problem, how do you in affect choose to remedy this situation? Liscenses are incompatible in their current state from what I know, and if you go to fully open PD liscense with no attrib, it still makes them incompatible?
I don't really want to rehearse the discussion about choice of license here, because it's been done on that specification and at length in the Community Council meetings. I've set out the basic reasons against an attribution licence on this thread (it would mean that derived works from the wiki would be impossible). Obviously many licenses are incompatible, and the discussion about the most appropriate one will continue.
Or is the solution on your part a more larger element of exerted control, just as Henrik made as a statement in his post on the UDSF Poll.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

Matt

[KingBahamut]

Im asking you , how you intend to remedy the incompatiblity of liscenses. You can take data all you like from the forums but have to attrib back to original source. This is clearly something that wont happen because of your own admission about the undesirability of an Attribution liscense. So then Im asking you, what do you intend to do to remedy the relationship between Wiki and other outside resources? Unless you have the ability to change all the liscenses in this situation.

[mattheweast]

Im asking you , how you intend to remedy the incompatiblity of liscenses. You can take data all you like from the forums but have to attrib back to original source. This is clearly something that wont happen because of your own admission about the undesirability of an Attribution liscense. So then Im asking you, what do you intend to do to remedy the relationship between Wiki and other outside resources? Unless you have the ability to change all the liscenses in this situation.

There isn't a solution to incompatible licenses, that I'm aware of, apart from getting the permission of the author to relicense the material.

By the way, just to be clear, there isn't a problem with attributing forum authors if we take material from the forum to the wiki. The problem is that the CC BY license requires that the same license be carried over to the wiki, and derivative works of the wiki would then have to attribute each author of the wiki based material, which is not possible, for the reasons I've mentioned. We want to give people the possibility of freely using the wiki material.

[KingBahamut]

I can admire that, but at the same time I believe in the desirablity to preserve someones own personal Picasso without it being marred by someone elses ideas.

[mattheweast]

I can admire that, but at the same time I believe in the desirablity to preserve someones own personal Picasso without it being marred by someone elses ideas.
Yeah, that's what websites are for :) Wikis have the opposite function: getting to the best possible result by everyone throwing in their 2 cents.