Re: OMG wiki license
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 23:31 -0500, Simon wrote: I'm usually a big nitpicker on the legal side, but suspend that for a moment and ask yourselves: is anybody who contributed to the wiki going to want to sue FIC for importing the content into an official wiki? I think that any major effort to restart the wiki is wasted effort that could be better spent elsewhere, whether for OpenMoko related activities or not. In any case, if you're going to get a license agreement on the wiki, it does not belong in the editable part of pages, it belongs in the edit UI as an agreement, i.e. By submitting content to this wiki you agree that you own the copyright for the submitted content, and agree to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License.. That way you don't have to waste effort putting a header on each page, and you don't have to worry about the integrity of all of the headers. However, I still don't think that there is a licensing issue with the content of the wiki, since the only people contributing to it would be extremely likely to be supportive of OpenMoko. Ok, legal stuff is very serious, however... Ok, another option, since a direct import is not probaby going to happen is to, once the new wiki is live, summarize and help build the new wiki using the temp one as guide, with the explicit directive that no copy-and-paste is allowed, however linking is ok. To all wiki-ppl out there, remember to always set-up licensing on your wiki prior to the start of your wiki. This is the easiest thing to do and saves the most time...cool? If so, then back to work, right ;) Jon ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA USA PH 510.499.0894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto Jabber Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 16:21 +0100, Harald Welte wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:29:47AM -0500, Richard Franks wrote: then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? This is not true and for sure in the US, where the instant someone contributes, their contribution is governed under copyright. Public domain only exists in the UK/US common law countries. I for example, as a German citizan, cannot put something into the public domain - unless my copyrigt expires some decades after my death. Yes, this is a murky area. I agree with Harold. However, public domain does not apply to this. So, yes, I firmly believe it is problematic to copy that old content into the new official wiki. Yes, this is true. And, we need to correct this somehow. I will outline below. Basically, the problem with the current temp wiki is that there is no license declaration, which means the content is controlled by copyright of each author. To make it more problematic, there is no required login, so it is very difficult to track these authors down. Thus, there are a few possibilities, that we can weigh in on. 1.) restart the wiki using GFDL 1.2 license and delete the current content. Then, the authors who created the previous content can login and add this content that they created to the wiki (which can be compared via diffs). And, all content from that point forward would be licensed under GFDL 1.2, as long as that statement is on every single page. 2.) Make a relicense agreement which would require every single person who has contributed to sign (which is also very unlikely because we don't have the full capability to match nonlogins (only IPs are recorded) with names. Thus, this type of agreement would be nearly impossible. I think the best step is #1, with a complete deletion of the old content on the wiki and the authors who have contributed can go back through the wiki and re-add the content that they added that is an original contribution and not a derivative of an old work. The most important part is that there needs to be a license declaration for the GNU FDL 1.2 license on every page. What do you all think about this? Yes, this sucks, but it is better to set a time to do this and just do it. There is another option suggested of authors, when the time to move over content to the official wiki comes, then authors move their own contributions over. This is problematic because authors have made derivatives of others works and certain contributions are dependent on others. However, there haven't been than many additive contributions, so I still think #1 above is the best option. Harold and others, what do you think? At least that way, not all is lost ;( If you all agree, lets set a time, say SAT 27th, 11:59 PM PST to delete and note the license on the wiki pages to restart this. I can do the honors. Jon The official wiki will, in the spirit of Wikipedia (and for compatibility) be using GFDL 1.2. Yes, then I think the temp wiki should use GFDL 1.2 license as well so content can move over to the new one. Jon Cheers, -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA USA PH 510.499.0894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto Jabber Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
On 1/27/07 3:26 AM, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 16:21 +0100, Harald Welte wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:29:47AM -0500, Richard Franks wrote: then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? This is not true and for sure in the US, where the instant someone contributes, their contribution is governed under copyright. Correct. You can't implicitly put anything into the public domain under US copyright law: you'd have to make a specific and concrete declaration to do so, or (more usually) simply wait for the copyright on it to expire... If you're interesting in folding all the Wiki content under the FDL, and you want to avoid running afoul of potential copyright entanglements, you're going to have to start over from scratch, I believe. You're also going to need to have each participant explicitly agree (probably when their account is created) to get explicit agreement that they abandon any interests they hold in any content they create on the site and assign copyright to such content to The OpenMoko Project or whatever. You might well also want a statement to the effect that any content they submit must not be derivative of material held under copyright elsewhere and be free of other encumbrances, etc., etc... This could get complicated, see...? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
I think this is all a bit overkill. I don't see any license other than the description this mailing list is for open discussion and feedback, for this mailing list.. yet these potentially copyrightable messages are mirrored by openmoko.com, gmane, etc. Why isn't everyone being sued? In our case, the source was either: a) An intentional email sent without copyright notice, to a membership-unknown public mailing list, with full knowledge that it would be stored and made freely available. b) An intentional edit made to a freely accessible public wiki. I don't see a legal case being made out of this. However, if a legal case could be made then linuxtogo are already liable as they have already published copyrighted material? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. Why don't we take a snapshot of the current wiki, and reword the content into a new licensed wiki? It's less work than doing everything all over again, we lose no contributions, and it's an opportunity to reorganise a bit. I'll volunteer to do a chunk of that work if we go that route. Richard On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/27/07 3:26 AM, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 16:21 +0100, Harald Welte wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:29:47AM -0500, Richard Franks wrote: then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? This is not true and for sure in the US, where the instant someone contributes, their contribution is governed under copyright. Correct. You can't implicitly put anything into the public domain under US copyright law: you'd have to make a specific and concrete declaration to do so, or (more usually) simply wait for the copyright on it to expire... If you're interesting in folding all the Wiki content under the FDL, and you want to avoid running afoul of potential copyright entanglements, you're going to have to start over from scratch, I believe. You're also going to need to have each participant explicitly agree (probably when their account is created) to get explicit agreement that they abandon any interests they hold in any content they create on the site and assign copyright to such content to The OpenMoko Project or whatever. You might well also want a statement to the effect that any content they submit must not be derivative of material held under copyright elsewhere and be free of other encumbrances, etc., etc... This could get complicated, see...? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 12:25 -0500, Richard Franks wrote: I think this is all a bit overkill. I don't see any license other than the description this mailing list is for open discussion and feedback, for this mailing list.. yet these potentially copyrightable messages are mirrored by openmoko.com, gmane, etc. Why isn't everyone being sued? Right, there are many issues, but lets just focus on the wiki right now ;) In our case, the source was either: a) An intentional email sent without copyright notice, to a membership-unknown public mailing list, with full knowledge that it would be stored and made freely available. b) An intentional edit made to a freely accessible public wiki. I don't see a legal case being made out of this. Right, but better to protect ourselves. Also, companies, like FIC/OpenMoko have to take every precaution. So, if we want our content included, we need to be cautious as well. snip / Why don't we take a snapshot of the current wiki, and reword the content into a new licensed wiki? It's less work than doing everything all over again, we lose no contributions, and it's an opportunity to reorganise a bit. I'll volunteer to do a chunk of that work if we go that route. Richard Yes, this is an option. Who is related to opentogo? And/or, what is the best way to go about this approach. I also thought about going through and deleting a page, putting a GNU FDL 1.2 statement at the top of the page, and then summarizing/redoing the old content. This way, any future contributions are protected. Cool? Yet again, I propose we do this at 11:59 PM PST SAT JAN 27 so we can knock this out. What do you think? Jon On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/27/07 3:26 AM, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 16:21 +0100, Harald Welte wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:29:47AM -0500, Richard Franks wrote: then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? This is not true and for sure in the US, where the instant someone contributes, their contribution is governed under copyright. Correct. You can't implicitly put anything into the public domain under US copyright law: you'd have to make a specific and concrete declaration to do so, or (more usually) simply wait for the copyright on it to expire... If you're interesting in folding all the Wiki content under the FDL, and you want to avoid running afoul of potential copyright entanglements, you're going to have to start over from scratch, I believe. You're also going to need to have each participant explicitly agree (probably when their account is created) to get explicit agreement that they abandon any interests they hold in any content they create on the site and assign copyright to such content to The OpenMoko Project or whatever. You might well also want a statement to the effect that any content they submit must not be derivative of material held under copyright elsewhere and be free of other encumbrances, etc., etc... This could get complicated, see...? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA USA PH 510.499.0894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto Jabber Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
On 1/27/07, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see a legal case being made out of this. Right, but better to protect ourselves. Also, companies, like FIC/OpenMoko have to take every precaution. So, if we want our content included, we need to be cautious as well. Agreed - but I think the risk here is so minimal, that we can decide upon a license and push the deadline back one week, which would give contributors a chance to add the new license to their own pages. Pros: * We may get revised/improved/edited content by increasing the number of people involved. * Intent or nuance will not be accidentally changed. I also thought about going through and deleting a page, putting a GNU FDL 1.2 statement at the top of the page, and then summarizing/redoing the old content. This way, any future contributions are protected. Cool? Yet again, I propose we do this at 11:59 PM PST SAT JAN 27 so we can knock this out. What do you think? Unless we have any parties - FIC, individual contributors or editors - who feel that extending that deadline by one week would be putting them under additional risk, then I'd say +1 week is an appropriate response to a pragmatic estimate of the extreme unlikelihood of the occurrence or significance of the threat. Richard ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
RE: OMG wiki license
This all seems reasonable and appropriate as a way to move forward... In fact, there's no particular real-world danger of a legal case. First of all, no one stands to make or lose any money on the content in question, so any action would be purely symbolic. Secondly, the way to start if one wished to exercise one's control over one's own material would be to send a cease and desist message to whomever ran the wiki to have the material taken down or better-attributed or whatever... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard Franks Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 1:42 PM To: OpenMoko Subject: Re: OMG wiki license On 1/27/07, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see a legal case being made out of this. Right, but better to protect ourselves. Also, companies, like FIC/OpenMoko have to take every precaution. So, if we want our content included, we need to be cautious as well. Agreed - but I think the risk here is so minimal, that we can decide upon a license and push the deadline back one week, which would give contributors a chance to add the new license to their own pages. Pros: * We may get revised/improved/edited content by increasing the number of people involved. * Intent or nuance will not be accidentally changed. I also thought about going through and deleting a page, putting a GNU FDL 1.2 statement at the top of the page, and then summarizing/redoing the old content. This way, any future contributions are protected. Cool? Yet again, I propose we do this at 11:59 PM PST SAT JAN 27 so we can knock this out. What do you think? Unless we have any parties - FIC, individual contributors or editors - who feel that extending that deadline by one week would be putting them under additional risk, then I'd say +1 week is an appropriate response to a pragmatic estimate of the extreme unlikelihood of the occurrence or significance of the threat. Richard ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
RE: OMG wiki license
Ok, well I think there is some need for speed for doing this so all future contributions are legally clear. Ok, lets shoot for the end of the day monday to have converted the pages. Also, we need a wikiable gnu fdl statement to use that we can put on each page that is reworked. Dave, woule you like to take a stab at that? Jon -Original Message- From: David Schlesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OpenMoko community@lists.openmoko.org Sent: 1/27/2007 2:09 PM Subject: RE: OMG wiki license This all seems reasonable and appropriate as a way to move forward... In fact, there's no particular real-world danger of a legal case. First of all, no one stands to make or lose any money on the content in question, so any action would be purely symbolic. Secondly, the way to start if one wished to exercise one's control over one's own material would be to send a cease and desist message to whomever ran the wiki to have the material taken down or better-attributed or whatever... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard Franks Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 1:42 PM To: OpenMoko Subject: Re: OMG wiki license On 1/27/07, Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see a legal case being made out of this. Right, but better to protect ourselves. Also, companies, like FIC/OpenMoko have to take every precaution. So, if we want our content included, we need to be cautious as well. Agreed - but I think the risk here is so minimal, that we can decide upon a license and push the deadline back one week, which would give contributors a chance to add the new license to their own pages. Pros: * We may get revised/improved/edited content by increasing the number of people involved. * Intent or nuance will not be accidentally changed. I also thought about going through and deleting a page, putting a GNU FDL 1.2 statement at the top of the page, and then summarizing/redoing the old content. This way, any future contributions are protected. Cool? Yet again, I propose we do this at 11:59 PM PST SAT JAN 27 so we can knock this out. What do you think? Unless we have any parties - FIC, individual contributors or editors - who feel that extending that deadline by one week would be putting them under additional risk, then I'd say +1 week is an appropriate response to a pragmatic estimate of the extreme unlikelihood of the occurrence or significance of the threat. Richard ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
I'm usually a big nitpicker on the legal side, but suspend that for a moment and ask yourselves: is anybody who contributed to the wiki going to want to sue FIC for importing the content into an official wiki? I think that any major effort to restart the wiki is wasted effort that could be better spent elsewhere, whether for OpenMoko related activities or not. In any case, if you're going to get a license agreement on the wiki, it does not belong in the editable part of pages, it belongs in the edit UI as an agreement, i.e. By submitting content to this wiki you agree that you own the copyright for the submitted content, and agree to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License.. That way you don't have to waste effort putting a header on each page, and you don't have to worry about the integrity of all of the headers. However, I still don't think that there is a licensing issue with the content of the wiki, since the only people contributing to it would be extremely likely to be supportive of OpenMoko. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
* Aloril [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070125 08:33]: As subject implies I have proposal I fear might lead to long flamewar. I hope I'm wrong. Given these assumptions/facts: 1) We want to copy stuff from unofficial wiki to official wiki when it becomes available. 2) Unofficial wiki doesn't have any copyright statement 1) looks legally problematic given 2) Even simpler proposal, because your's has the problem that it's problematic to track who has given permission for what. Just let the people who submitted it first move it to the official wiki. This mailing list feels to much like a collection of hobby lawyers nitpicking in the last weeks. (I admit that I happen to nitpick from time to time too.) Andreas ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
IANAL (or a hobby lawyer!) but I think if someone has contributed to the unofficial wiki without checking for a license, and without specifying their own license... then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? At least, I think it would be very hard to make a problematic legal case from this. Richard On 1/25/07, Aloril [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As subject implies I have proposal I fear might lead to long flamewar. I hope I'm wrong. Given these assumptions/facts: 1) We want to copy stuff from unofficial wiki to official wiki when it becomes available. 2) Unofficial wiki doesn't have any copyright statement 1) looks legally problematic given 2) Proposal: 1) Anybody who has contributed more than few lines to unofficial wiki gives permission to copy their contribution to official wiki no matter what license official wiki will use. 2) Statement like You allow your contribution to be copied to official wiki under license official wiki will be using. is added to unofficial wiki when user is editing page. -- Aloril [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: OMG wiki license
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:29:47AM -0500, Richard Franks wrote: then there is no copyright issue as the contributors have implicitly put their words into the public domain? Public domain only exists in the UK/US common law countries. I for example, as a German citizan, cannot put something into the public domain - unless my copyrigt expires some decades after my death. So, yes, I firmly believe it is problematic to copy that old content into the new official wiki. The official wiki will, in the spirit of Wikipedia (and for compatibility) be using GFDL 1.2. Cheers, -- - Harald Welte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openmoko.org/ Software for the worlds' first truly open Free Software mobile phone ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
