Wikipedia talk:Multi-licensing

Is Copyright a License?

I know the FSF (of which Lawrence Lessig is a board member) considers Copyright and the (GPL) License as two different legal entities; for example, any "official" GNU tools must transfer their copyright to the FSF as well, "as a precaution" or somesuch.

Now, Creative Commons intends to supplant copyright... yet, the "leity summary" describes CC as a license...

My concern is, can someone other than the author submit a ShareAlike media into a GFDL media?

(Specifically, I have photos on Flickr under an Attribution-only license because my interpretation of both the CC and GFDL are as licenses; therefore, the ShareAlike -- though spiritually aligned with the GFDL -- is incompatible with the GFDL. In fact, it seems the Attribution CC license is the only one which is compatible with the GFDL; together they are slightly more restrictive than the GFDL alone -- a complete history of attribution must be maintained. To bring this back to the Wikipedia community, my primary concern is for others to be able to contribute my photos to the Wikimedia Commons.)

According to the Wikipedia entry on the Wikimedia Commons, "Licenses that are acceptable include the GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons licenses with no restrictions on use, and the public domain." I take "no restrictions on use" to mean including the ShareAlike provision. Is this correct?

Derivative Works

However, individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author. This is not true, actually. A derivative work doesn't have to contain the original work in whole or in part. Some examples of derivative works that don't contain the original are translations to another language or sequels of novels or plays. Some adaptations to other media don't contain the original work, some do.

In any case, modifications to an encyclopedia article very clearly derive from the work that exists before. --ESP 01:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs to be explained more finely. What you are saying is absolutely true. Whether something is a derivative work largely depends on the source of the information. Rewording a GFDL passage in an article would be a derivative work. Adding a paragraph that is unrelated would be separate. When a person makes a contribution, they have the text of what they want to add to an article. That text is their own and is copyrighted by them by default and they can release said text under any license they choose, which they will then proceed to license under the GFDL. Of course if that text was based on the article itself, then it will be solely licensed under the GFDL. It is quite hard to figure out what is what once an article has been edited by someone who does not multi-license. That is not to say that the problem cannot be remedied, but It won't be easy. The article says "one must use common sense" which is not a very precise way of stating this problem. The thing is that there is not a single precise way to figure out if the component parts of an article can be used in a multi-licensed fashion after a non-multi-licensor edits it. For example:

1. (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH) -- Multi-licence user
2. (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH ) -- Multi-license user
3. (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A THIRD PARAGRAPH) -- Single License user
4. (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A THIRD PARAGRAPH) -- Multi-License User
5. (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / ThIs Is A ThIrD PaRaGrApH) -- Multi-License User
6. (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / ThIs Is A nEw PaRaGrApH / ThIs Is A ThIrD PaRaGrApH) -- Multi-License User

In the case above the article the following could be multilicensed:

1. (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / ThIs Is A nEw PaRaGrApH)

Since the third paragraph was started by a single license user, the multi-licensed user's changes to it would create a derivative work on the component parts. This would be the logical equivelent of removing a vandals edits or removing a copyright violation from an article. The history still holds the copyright violation, but it has since been removed from the article along with any derivations. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 04:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be modified to read: "When wanting to use an article under a second license, the user must remove all copyright violations and the derivative works based on them", because that is essentially what we are doing. In this context a copyright violation would be the GFDL-only when trying to use it as a CC-by-sa document. Wikipedians already have a pretty good idea of what it means to remove a copyright violation, so it should help with the so-called "common sense". – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

A derivative work doesn't have to contain the original work in whole or in part. The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals has specifically ruled otherwise. To quote Galoob v. Nintendo, "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form." Some examples of derivative works that don't contain the original are translations to another language or sequels of novels or plays. All these things contain the original story. If you're saying there doesn't have to be any verbatim text, then you are correct, but derivative works necessary contain the original in some form. anthony 警告 13:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you were not correct on this, then if someone added a copyright violation and this was not caught after many edits were made to the page, then the whole page would have to be thrown away back to before the copyright violation. This of course makes no sense if the edits were not to the portion that was a copyright violation. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Text contributions only?

Why do all the default CC-SA templates specify text contributions only? I think this is a major shot in the foot, as images are the easiest and most practical things to share between (eg) Wikipedia and Wikitravel, and most all people who dual-license their text would also be happy to dual-license their pictures.

I can see there being a need for a text-only template, but this should be the exception, not the default! Jpatokal 10:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A photo I dual-licensed under the GFDL and an nc CC was deleted at commons, but I haven't been able to find out if it's because commons demands only GFDL only, or some other reason. — Jeandré, 2005-04-08t20:50z

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Anybody? Jpatokal 11:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Metalicensing

Ram-Man has said "Wikipedia can never fully or officially dual-license all of its stuff. See Wikipedia:Multi-licensing for more information. Part of the problem is that this can't be done automatically." and I tended to agree since I was not really aware of any easy way to have a piece of work released under multiple licenses having multiple authors. However, I believe that this interesting article on metalicensing may offer insight and solutions to people who would like Wikipedia expanded beyond the GNU FDL and some of the problems this particular license has.

As I mentioned, Newsforge has an interesting article on how to 'metalicense' a work so it is covered by multiple licenses. If we could have Wikipedia licensed under both the GNU FDL and a CC license I believe it would encourage people who have reservations about the GNU FDL's flaws to come aboard.

The author of this article also has a webpage up, released under a CC license in case you'd like to share it, here about metalicensing which goes into greater detail than the Newsforge article. --ShaunMacPherson 04:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GFDL/CC compatibility?

Future amendments to the GFDL reducing the burden on the reproducer may make dual-licencing with a Creative Commons licence unnecessary. (from main page)

Does anyone know anything about this? Who's involved? Timeframe? I want to start a wiki, and this would have a big effect on what license I would choose. Zach 14:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The extremely flawed GFDL (such as if you print out a copy of the article under the license you are suppose to include the entire GNUFDL(icense) ) with it. You could do a metalicense in which you state that the article can be distributed under the CC under version x or if you choose a updated version of the CC license, or under the GNU FDL version y, or if you choose an updated version of the license. You'd also have to add that any deritive works must be licensed under both licenses though, thats how the metalicense works :).

A metalicense is the best way to ensure compatibility between the GNU FDL and the CC, with some articles on the subject here:

Meatlicensing

Full article on it

--ShaunMacPherson 06:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

v2.5?

Having just added the {{MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any}} message to my own user page, I note that the template's header says: "Multi-licensed with any Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License" - but that the body of the template text specifically mentions four licences (the GFDL and three CC licences). The newish Share-Alike v2.5 [1] isn't mentioned at all, so what's the status of that licence as far as multilicensing goes? Loganberry | Talk 14:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that all CC licenses are forwards-compatible; if your stuff is available under version 2.0 it's available under 2.5 as well (though not vice versa). (This hidden detail is one of many reasons you should read the full legal code and not trust the "human-readable summary.") --Graue 02:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

So whats the difference between v2.0 and v2.5? - NickC 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly... some general clarifications and improvements, I guess. Their licenses are so insanely long bugs must be inevitable. --Graue 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Multilicensing into Public Domain

Am I the only one that feels it is impossible to license your work under the GFDL and release it into the public domain? To release something under the GFDL, it must be copyrighted, and if it's copyrighted it can't be in the public domain. Thoughts? --Superm401 | Talk 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

License != copyright. A PD work was copyrighted by its author, the author just says he abrogates all his rights to it. So the author can take one copy and place it in PD, and take another copy and license it as GFDL.

That said, this is essentially nonsensical, because anybody can take the PD version and do anything they like to it — this means GFDL can't be enforced and there's no point in licensing it as such. Jpatokal 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status exists by work, not by copy. The idea of placing one copy in the public domain and retaining copyright (and therefore the ability to license) for a different copy is nonsense. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why only SA?

I don't know why the only dual-licensing options that have been considered are with (or include) the ShareAlike versions of the CC licenses. I am not comfortable with forward-forcing licenses; and I am content dual licensing with simple good old CC-By. To that end, I've added Template:DualLicenseWithCC-By into the mix. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

How does this pan out in relation to images, specifically? pfctdayelise 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

They're excluded. I've been asking why for a year, and have yet to receive an answer. Jpatokal 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to move to CC 3.0

This page needs some updating in order to reflect the new 3.0 versions of Creative Commons' licenses. Then again, how much compatible will it be for multi-licensing? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-Licensing with unfree licenses

Do you think anyone would find it objectionable? In principle, I don't see why I couldn't also put this image under some license that said "Send $1 to Charity X" or "Free for plastering onto the sides of buses for non-Commercial purposes", but I just have this gut feeling someone'd raise a stink. WilyD 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can license your own images however you want. What you're describing is in between free licenses and public domain licensing, and editors use both of those with no complaints. — Omegatron 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Public_domain_license

Category:Public domain license is up for deletion/renaming/discussion. A couple of concerns have been brought up about the messy implementation of multi-licensing templates in userspace. Any input would be appreciated. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)