MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing

2010-01-07T08:02:47Z

99.240.191.172: /* Inching toward resolution */

== Possible Relicensing? ==

So, Wikipedia is moving from the GFDL to a Creative Commons license, which will make it incompatible with most Wikia sites from then on. (Presumably; I haven't heard if Wikia at large or any of its individual wikis--like the old Transformers one-- are making the same transition.) Should TFWiki consider switching, too? Pretty much everyone outside the Wikipedia/Wikia family goes with CC, which is a lot simpler in a lot of ways than the GFDL.

[[wikipedia:GFDL#Compatibility with CC-BY-SA|Apparently, GFDL-licensed wikis can only make the change before August 1, 2009]]. And unlike them, we probably wouldn't have to worry about having added any content from non-wiki GFDL-licensed things, at least. And it would completely eliminate legal copying/pasting between this wiki and its rival. --[[User:Fleb|Fleb]] 17:47, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

:I would support this, at least tentatively. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:16, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
::On the surface, at least, it looks like a good move. It keeps the same free-info spirit, but is incompatible with Wikia's license ''and'' any info-quoting or copying from us further requires attributing the wiki, if I'm reading it right. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:18, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Hmm. I thought about bringing this Creative Commons thing up awhile back, but I'm not Legal Smarts (S-M-R-T) enough to fully understand it. Perhaps our staff should comment on this? The final decision is probably theirs. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I don't really have much to say, other than it sounds like a good idea. If nothing else, the legal terms of the GFDL are nightmarish at best and I'd be happy to never think of them again. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 14:02, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
IANAL, but [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update based on Wikimedia's page,] it ''looks'' like "relicensing" the site is just a matter of changing all the text that mentions "GFDL" now. The one requirement is that we're using [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html version 1.3.] [[Transformers Wiki:Copyrights]] doesn't specify a version, and neither does the edit page or the footer, so that's probably okay. (''[[Transformers Wiki:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.]]'') --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 18:30, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::One thing that's confusing me, looking again at that - Wikipedia's new licensing structure seems confusing in that all non-imported-under-a-CC-licence content will still be dual-licensed under the GDFL. If we adopted that, Wikia could import from us, but we couldn't import from Wikia. CAN the GDFL be dropped completely? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:31, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, definitely. The dual-licensing is just ''Wikipedia's'' own, weird thing to keep the Free Software Foundation loyalists from bitching and Leaving Forever. (Those CC-only things should actually "poison" individual pages so they're not truly GFDL-licensable anymore without reverting, so they'll probably eventually drop it completely.) --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 22:05, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Which CC license would we use? Seems like [[wikipedia:Creative_Commons_licenses#Original_licenses|from the Wikipedia CC page]] that a by-nc-nd license would be what we're after? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:16, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:It would be [[wikipedia:Share-alike|CC-by-sa]]. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:23, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
::That looks like a good idea to me. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Definitely By-SA -- If we do a No-Derivatives, how would we even edit any of our own pages? --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 22:05, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Seems I misunderstood how the licensing applied. :) --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:44, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

===ARE we going to relicence?===
So, are we going to do it, is it being investigated, or are we going to just leave it until the grace period expires and we have to stick with the GDFL after all? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:09, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
:I vote we do it. Anyone else? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:14, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::It seems to be a less onerous license, and one which we have a window of opportunity to switch to. I'd say go for it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:18, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::+1 vote in favor of relicensing. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: -1, I'm against it unless we find a copyright lawyer. The GFDL provides no provisions against re-use in commercial projects. While I'm all for 'Hasbro' poking around on this wiki and recycling bios/names/ideas/what-have-you, if someone else decides to redistribute this content for commercial purposes (for example, selling an iPhone/Android app that's basically an offline cache of the wiki,) I want to make sure that we're not on the hook for it. I get that Hasbro is turning a gleefully blind eye to us as long as we're just trying to stay alive as a volunteer effort, but if we end up attached to someone's attempt to profit off of our work, which is in itself a derivative work of at least a dozen various IP holders, the resulting storm of litigation would shut us down within hours. (And no, I am in fact the 'least' qualified person around to give advice on this situation. I'm just a paranoid freak.) --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 12:07, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::...I have no idea what you just said. Literally. It seems vaguely like you're trying to argue against using the GDFL on the grounds that someone could resell the wiki content. But we're ALREADY using the GDFL and talking about '''changing''' to a [[Wikipedia:Creative Commons licenses|Creative Commons licence]] (Which includes the option for a -nc flag, although no-one here has proposed that as yet that I can see - and given that we carry ads, we may not be allowed to use a -nc flag. That's one I'd like a lawyer's opinion on).
:::::[And could you login just to prove that's you? You posted that as an anon] - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::Yeah, under our current GDFL license, the content of this wiki can '''already''' be sold. Staying with the GDFL won't fix that.
::::::On that note, I will say I'd actually prefer to change to the non-commercial version of the Share-Alike CC license myself, but I had gotten the feeling that there was that only one specific CC license you could switch to. Was I mistaken on that? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:08, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::They specifically mention CC-BY-SA 3.0, so you're probably right about -nc not being an option, I suppose. For the avoidance of doubt, the GDFL section on relicensing follows in its' own section, [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html the GDFL as a whole is here], a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ summary of CC-BY-SA 3.0 is here] and the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode full CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence is here] - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:25, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Hrm. I guess that's something we should ask... someone? Who's in charge of all this wiki relicensing as a whole?
::::::::But for what it's worth, we could use an -nc flag despite the ads, if it's allowed:
::::::::'''Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?'''

Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.

Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.|[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_still_make_money_from_a_work_I_make_available_under_a_Creative_Commons_licenses.3F Creative Commons FAQ]}}
::::::::Of course, we obviously actually can't outright sell the work ourselves either, but that answer does seem to mean that, even if showing ads technically counts as "commercial use", we can still use an NC license. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:31, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, if the GDFL only allows us to go to CC-BY-SA3, and not CC-BY-SA-NC, it's kind of a moot point. Which is annoying, since the -nc version DEFINITELY seems more desirable, since it would absolutely lock Wikia out from copying us if true) - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:33, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::I decided to send off the following e-mail to the GDFL folks' contact e-mail:
:::::::::::Greetings. I'm one of the editors on a Mediawiki-based wiki dedicated to the Transformers franchise: http://tfwiki.net/

:::::::::::We are currently discussing the prospect of also switching from the GDFL to the CC-BY-SA3. However, we were wondering if the CC-BY-SA3 is truly the *only* BY-SA that can be switched to, or if CC-BY-NC-SA3 would also be possible. Since our wiki is obviously based off writing about copyrighted material, it would help us greatly in remaining on the franchise's parent company's good side if we could ensure that our content cannot be sold.

:::::::::::Your answer on this would be much appreciated.

:::::::::::Signed,
:::::::::::Liz Calkins

::::::::::With any luck I'll get an answer I can pass along. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:55, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

===GDFL section 11, relicensing===
'''11. RELICENSING'''

"Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.

"CC-BY-SA" means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same organization.

"Incorporate" means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in part, as part of another Document.

An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.

===Derik causes problems===
What is the actual difference between these liscences? Is there a breakdown somewhere?

The explanations I hear online are "They're exactly the same, only CC-BY-SA is worded clearer!"

Is there a more substantial difference?

Regardless, I'm going to suggest TFWiki, in addition to whatever base license we adopt, add a (God help me) '''signing statement''' making clear that our legal ability ''to'' license the content on this wiki extends ''only'' to our own value-added contributions, and not the content which is copywritten by Hasbro.

A '''fundamental''' problem with the GFDL (originally a license intended for creating collaborative ''software documentation'') and CC-SA (a license for artists to release their work while still retaining some control of ''how'' it is used) is that '''both''' licenses operate under the assumption that the people collaborating to produce this content '''own''' the content they're uploading. If they produced it, they have the right to give ''other'' people the right to use it.
[[Image:Second generation reuser.jpg|thumb|250px]]
...we didn't produce Transformers. We don't have the right to distribute Screencaps-- '''our use''' of those screencaps falls under "fair use," anyone wishing to re-use screencaps posted on this wiki is not '''granted the use of them''' via our ''release'' of the screencaps... they are claiming fair use from Hasbro again. Even our ''article text content'' is a melange of "we can claim ownership" and "derived fromHasbro to such an extent that we cannot claim ownership over it" (moreso than Memory Alpha, because for many obscure characters, their entire bio is nothing but a rephrasing of their tech-spec. The amount of 'value added' work done by us in relation to hasbro's copyright on the original text is very low.)

And that's even '''separate''' from McFeely's concern that someone could create an "offline TFWiki" as an iPhone app-- citing their right to use our content under GFDL-- and then never paying Hasbro a dime. In that scenario-- we are the 'leak' for Hasbro's lawyers to plug by shutting us down. Adopting a "NC" (non-commercial use only) license just means they couldn't ''charge'' for it... they could still create a ''free'' downloadable or java app (Transformer tech-spec viewers are fairly popular as mobile downloads, apparently) with the same result. Besides-- a NC license would ''technically'' mean that Hasbro's own people couldn't use the Wiki as a resource anymore. (At least, under sufficiently draconian lawyers, like Disney's.)

Equally undesirable, IMO, is someone who '''has''' a TF license via Hasbro, like a book company, that might decide to cheap-out on their content and simply re-present wiki articles-- under GFDL from ''us'' for our contributions and fully licensed from ''Hasbro'' for the portion of the content that ''they'' own. I don't fucking '''want''' TF guidebooks cheeping out liek that-- and I'm '''really''' uncomfortable with any part of our user-generated content becoming primary source material. That's how [[Wikipedia:Daken|Daken]] got created!

A way around ''that'' might involve a ''second'' license on our content that's '''dependent''' on a commercial producer having the TF license. (This sounds murky, but I think it can make sense...)

...

<nowiki>*scrolls up*</nowiki> Um, wow. That's a lot of text.

Basically what I'm saying is;
# As long as we're updating our license, I think we should take the time to make it the '''right''' license, one that;
##Allows users to freely contribute.
##Allows ''creators'' to freely play.
##Reflect that a good deal of our content (particularly graphics) is not owned by us.
##Respects Hasbro's legal and business needs vis-a-vis copyright.
##Recognizes that TFWiki ''is'' used as a resource for commercial products. (Share-and-share-alike is good, but it can have some ''bad'' consequences on 'child' derived works, rendering them uncopyrightable.)
##Attempt to make sure we're not the '''only''' resourced used by those products

No existing license (that I'm aware of) actually reflects the special needs of media fandom wikis. and the degree of disconnect isn't small-- it's legally significant, and it inhibits our ability to control what happens to our content to protect both our own interests and those of Hasbro.

I think we can do that without breaking our brains ''or'' hiring a lawyer-- but it requires acting with intention. Like-- forming an exploratory committee seriously peck the problem apart. The upshot might be... well... considerable. We're hardly the ''only'' wiki in this position, and taking the hammer out a standard approach stands a decent chance of being adopted elsewhere. (That's kinda meta-benefit to TFWiki, but it's certainly reputation-building. In terms of "moral authority" a lot of people seem to feel like TFWiki is the place that did things ''right''; our approach to WP:NPOV, leaving Wikia, stance on spoilers, our protective attitude towards the brand, etc... at least I keep running into references to TFWiki in the ''weirdest'' places, and they're almost always complimentary in terms ''not'' just related to our content.)

Is anyone ''else'' with an interest in (or at least tolerance for) copyright law interested in doing this '''right'''? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:Actually, there's no reason whatsoever that Hasbro couldn't use the wiki as a resource under a NC license. They just wouldn't be able to sell any of the exact content of the wiki, if that makes sense. It's the difference between being able to look up that Optimus Prime did some obscure thing in a certain episode, and quoting the wiki article for Optimus Prime verbatim.
:Plus, AFAIK, all CC licenses allow for the licensees to make individual exceptions, meaning that even if Hasbro ''did'' want to verbatim print some part of the wiki for some reason, we could make an exception for them to do so.
:And personally I don't see any big deal with someone giving copies of the wiki away as a free resource, at least in a legal sense, seeing as how the wiki is basically a free guide to Transformers. As long as we're given credit and it's made clear that it's not in any way an official product, it's exactly the same practical result as someone surfing to the wiki itself on their iPhone browser or whatever, just made more convenient. (The only difference is that we don't get the pageviews for ad revenue if people read our material elsewhere, but that's our problem to deal with, not Hasbro's.)
:Having said all that, a license that allows for protections on things like screenshots and scans would be useful.
:However, that's not something that could be handled before August, I don't think. Personally I'd rather change to some sort of CC license now as an interim measure, and then change again later down the road if a better CC license or other license becomes available.
:Otherwise, we may end up locked into a GDFL license we can't change away from anyway, even if we do later come up with something better. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::''Actually, there's no reason whatsoever that Hasbro couldn't use the wiki as a resource under a NC license. They just wouldn't be able to sell any of the exact content of the wiki, if that makes sense.''
:::I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that CC-NC also stipulates that any ''derived'' work must also be CC-NC. So if they rewrite any portion of our content-- or re-create a diagram we created-- that's a derived work they can't include in a comercial product. And since the license actually says that any CC-NC ''element'' caused the entire ''resulting work'' to be CC-NC, that means that if (for example) IDW did photomanip work on a CC-NC image from here and threw it in as an image on a monitor for ''Spotlight: Brunt''-- the entirely of ''Spotlight: Brunt'' would fall out of copyright. Anyone could copy it, alter it, and legally distribute copies of it.
:::What are the odds of a singe identifiable sentence lifted from the wiki ever making it into a TF guidebook by accident? If so-- the entire book is now CC-NC, legal to pirate.
:::At least, that's my ''understanding'' of how CC-NC works-- and I ended up having to '''read''' the entire damn license for a software thing I was working on two years ago that used a PHP-library that was CC-NC. It's the '''same''' license, right? It's not like CC-NC is "made for wikis," it covers a ''wide range'' of products. Am I wrong on this? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Clarification-- I'm actually referring to CC-SA3 in the previous section, not CC-NC. but since we're considering ''moving'' to a license that '''would be''' SA3, the scenario still stands.
::::[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ It's right there in plain english]. <tt>If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.</tt> If any of our content leaked into an official product, that product would suddenly be creative-commons and freely distribuitable.
::::...why do you think the "free information" people have been braying for the license change? This is a stealth copyright-subversion scheme. as accidental direct lifts from Wikipedia (or any product derived from wikipedia content) slip into comercial products, they will become '''legally contaminated''', and then contaminate anything that uses content FROM them. It's ''better'' than the Public Domain, because derived works based on the public domain are copyrightable... derived works based on CC-SA are ''not'', they are inherently "free." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Well, once again, the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ license outright states] that "Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." So again, even if Hasbro or another licensee wanted to sell any wiki-based work, we could just waive the Share-Alike and Non-Commercial aspects for them alone. So that's not a problem/issue.
:::::And again, I'd rather just make the switch now, then we can always switch again if we find something better down the road. Rather than trying to be hasty about it to fit it in before August, so we don't get locked into the GFDL for good.
:::::Further, it's not like we don't already have all of the potential problems you state under our current license anyway. Doesn't the GDFL already require you to release any derivative material under the GDFL license too? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::"The Copyright holder" in this case is every person who has ever edited an article on this wiki, or Wikia before we moved.
:::::::Did you collect thousands of legal proxies that allow you to speak for them? ''You'' can't just legally decide to 'wave a copyright,' nor can a steering committee. The copyright has to be waived by the ''holder''.
:::::::And what the waiver notice is really saying is "you can shortform a separate license understanding independent of this liscence as long as you deal directly with the person who owns the copyright on the work." That's ''always'' true, it's not a CC thing. You'd have to get a list of every person who's ever edited an article and get them all to agree to waive their rights for Hasbro, which you so casually hand-wave over.
:::::::Maybe a better question-- if the primary reason to switch licenses is this "SAS" clause tyhat infects all derived work-- and we want to ''exempt'' Hasbro from that clause... why are we even switching?
:::::::I'm not even against switching licenses... I just think it should be a ''thought out'' decision, not a casual one. '''This''' discussion has basically consisted of ''"Everyone is switching, it's a good idea u wanna?" "LOL, sure why not!"''
:::::::There are actual not-irrelevant legal ramifications of this decision-- and I'm not sure it's in our best interests ''or'' Hasbro's best interests to do this. Can we actually ''look'' at what we're signing off on before putting it to an up-and-down vote? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:56, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but my end of the discussion is more like, "We only have a month and a half to make the decision, the CC switch looks like it wouldn't add any problems that don't already exist under the GDFL, it might give us some ''benefits'' that don't already exist under the GDFL, and the CC seems to be less binding anyway, so we can switch easier down the road."
::::::::Furthermore, considering how we're already going to be able to switch to the new license without requiring everyone's sign-off anyway, I don't see why we can't just put the waiver for Hasbro and their licensees into the switch from the get-go.
::::::::Then on top of that, if you want to get absolutely technical, since Hasbro and their licensees are the copyright holders for all this stuff to begin with, they get an automatic waver on our derivative work anyway, because we don't have the legal right to lock them out of their own copyright. All we can do is lock non-Hasbro-licensees out of our take on Hasbro's copyright.
::::::::So, hey, if someone here can get a lawyer to knock out a good alternative in a month and a half, go for it. Otherwise, seeing as how '''the GDFL we're under already ''has'' all the problems you're complaining about''', I see no reason that switching would at least put us any worse off than we are already. All of your alleged problems either already exist anyway under the current GFDL license, or aren't actually problems. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::''I don't see why we can't just put the waiver for Hasbro and their licensees into the switch from the get-go.''
:::::::::Because then you're committing a legal offense against both the copyright holders ''and'' the FSF? That's actually worse than your last suggestion.
:::::::::I'd be a '''lot''' more confident in your judgment about the legal ramifications of the switch if you didn't keep suggesting things that were illegal. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:48, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::"Then on top of that, if you want to get absolutely technical, since Hasbro and their licensees are the copyright holders for all this stuff to begin with, they get an automatic waver on our derivative work anyway, because ''we don't have the legal right to lock them out of their own copyright.'' All we can do is lock non-Hasbro-licensees out of our take on Hasbro's copyright."
::::::::::As in, I already know that part, thanks.
::::::::::As for the FSF part, I'm not sure how it's a legal offense against the FSF to insitute a waiver during the switch that the ''new license already explicitly allows as being possible''.
::::::::::I'd be a lot more interested in your rebuttals if you sounded like you read not only what I already wrote, but what the legal articles themselves say. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::In any case, like I said, if someone here can afford to ask a lawyer about this, I've got no objections to that. But I have to admit you haven't said how staying with the GFDL solves any of your concerns, seeing as how AFAIK said concerns all exist under our current GDFL too. *shrug* --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:03, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::''I'm not sure how it's a legal offense against the FSF to insitute a waiver during the switch that the ''new license already explicitly allows as being possible''.''
:::::::::::# You don't have the legal right to act as the proxy of everyone who's edited this wiki by declaring a waiver in any circumstance.
:::::::::::# You intend to muddy those legal waters by making the acceptance of this waiver a rider on the license switchover-- the FSF debated for almost a ''year'' before finally deciding the two liscences were close enough to make the switch-- '''they''' have the legal right to determine what new licensing is and is not permissible under GFDL. That's like taking a EULA for a piece of software, agreeing to it, then declaring, "And now I'm going to make unilateral revisions to it without the other side of this contract's knowledge or agreement-- but they're totally legally binding and I can grant myself extra rights with them." And that's even ''aside'' from making them an an accessory of your unlawful claim of proxy over the thousands of editors who've created content. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:16, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::#We're already making a claim of proxy over the editors by being able to switch the license to begin with.
::::::::::::#The whole point is moot anyway, because way I see it, we ''have'' to effectively give Hasbro a waiver on using anything on this wiki in their own commercial copyright, because we don't have any copyright powers over their content anyway. I don't see how we could legally force Hasbro to have no control over their own copyright to begin with, just because we wrote about it under a share-alike license, because we never had the copyrights to begin with! And that exact same problem already exists under the GFDL we're already under. Again, the only right we have at all is to keep non-Hasbro-licensees from using our content in certain ways.
::::::::::::#In short, you're the one being silly by making the claim we have the right to ever lock Hasbro out of their own copyright to begin with. You can't be unlawful by having people give up rights they don't actually have anyway. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::''We're already making a claim of proxy over the editors by being able to switch the license to begin with.
:::::::::::::No, you're not. All of those original users granted you the right to make a ''specific'' proxy call (switch from GFDL 1.3 to CC-BY-SA3 '''only''') under an obscure clause in GFDL. That right was granted every time an edit was made, and has lain dormant ever since. And relicensing ''not'' explicitly made provision for under an updated GFDL would require you to ''contact'' all those users and get them to sign off on it. This specific license change ''only'' was pre-approoved. It's like checking the "Organ doner, eyes" tab on your driver's license. You granted themt he right to take your eyes ''if the opportunity came up''. When you show up in an operating room brain dead, they can't just arbitrarily decide to take your liver too without the permission of your legal custodian. (In this metaphor, that would be "going back to the original editors or their Power of Attorney heir and asking them to sign off on it.")
:::::::::::::STOP TRYING TO STEAL MY DAMN LIVER! I SWEAR, EVERY DAY... THAT DAMN BIRD! -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:33, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::::You still have yet to explain how any license we apply can possibly block out Hasbro from having the rights to their own copyright. Therefore, yet again, the whole point is moot, because Hasbro would already technically exempt from the SA (& NC) parts of the license anyway no matter what we try to claim. Yet again, you can't take away rights from our editors that they never had to begin with.
::::::::::::::The best you can possibly do is state that our claim of being under the GFDL is already invalid anyway, because we don't have the right to ever force Hasbro to release their own copyrighted material under the same GFDL license if they use our writings. In which case we might as well just ignore this whole deal that thus doesn't apply to us anyway, and switch to whatever Memory Alpha does. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:47, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::We would not be locking Hasbro out of their own copyrights-- Hasbro would be at risk to involuntarily surrender many of their rights. That's a different thing.
:::::::::::::::Devaluation of the Transformers license? That too. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:59, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Why would Hasbro surrender any of its rights? We have the right to say how our content is used, but we don't have any right to say how Hasbro gets to use its own copyrighted material, whether they use our writings or not. You don't get to claim copyright over something just by writing about it. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:19, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::If you don't grasp the concept that we have some copyright claim over our own article text here (the starting point) I don't really feel like going another round explaining everythign that follows ''after'' that to you, because it's a non-starter. There's no point in laying out the problems involved if you're stuck on the givens at the starting point.
:::::::::::::::::Refer to my previous example with ''Spotlight: Brunt'' for why SA3 would be undesirable for IDW. See how that legal ambiguity makes the TF License (which IDW pays an annual fee for) worth less money. Listen as I tell you that the people pushing for this license change ''intend'' that legal ambiguity because they have an axe to grind against copyright, and they intend to cause so much ''suffering'' (and hopefully few landmark legal cases) that copyright law gets reformed.
:::::::::::::::::That's great. I think copyright law needs reform. But their method for doing so involves creating '''massive legal headaches''' for vast numbers of people. I'd prefer TFWiki and Hasbro ''not'' be among those numbers of people. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:04, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::But like Jeysie said, GFDL ''already'' has those problems, it's a Share-Alike-style license and has all the weird ambiguities that CC-By-SA has for a fandom wiki, so I'm not sure how switching advances the Brave Copyright Cause and exposes TFWiki to legal troubles anymore than the license we're already stuck with? --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 00:43, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::^^ This. And, you're still not paying attention to anything else I've said either.
::::::::::Hasbro has control over their copyright. And, to be perfectly honest, in the end Hasbro has full control over ''our'' stuff too anyway because it's technically unauthorized derivative works. I've known several fangames once where the parent company basically made them either sign control of the game over to them or delete the games entirely. What the fangame people wanted to do with their games regards licensing meant precisely jack, because they didn't control the copyright their work was based on. This is exactly the same situation.
::::::::::We can get away with making people not licensed by Hasbro follow our rules regards our content, but that's it. If Hasbro wants to use our content, they have the right to dictate the terms of use, not us.
::::::::::Now, if we were writing entirely original work here that wasn't based on any existing property, ''then'' we could dictate terms, because Hasbro would be using something that we had full copyright control over. ''That's'' where forcing people into using the same Share-Alike license comes into play. But since Hasbro made the initial things we're deriving ''our'' work from, we have to play by their rules for their content. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:21, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::But copyright-- even with derived works-- is ''not'' a black-and-white thing with one owner. If I made a "Freddy Krueger vs. Aliens" fanfilm, New Line Cinema can't claim 100% ownership over my work simply by virtue of the fact that they can't claim ownership over aliens. But they ''also'' can't claim ownership over my original character heroine. That belongs to '''me''', not New Line or Fox.
:::::::::::Either New Line or Fox could scuttle my project (if I was insane enough to try and distribuit it) or even keep me from putting it up on YouTube-- because the work cannot exist without their copyrighted characters.
:::::::::::But, even ''after'' that happened, there's nothing to prevent me from re-filming the movie as "Dr. Jeckel vs. the Moorlocks" with my fanchar heroine intact. Despite not having the right to use Fox and new Lines characters... the "value added" elements of my copyright-violating production '''remain my property'''.
:::::::::::And your failure to understand that is what's keeping you fron understanding the implications of SA3.
:::::::::::I freely ''admit'' they're largely '''abstract''' implications, because no one of us or hasbro actually ''cares''... but I also think that this licensing switchover is being pushed by a group with an agenda in mind that boils down to ''"get a lot of people (mainly Wikipedia) to switch their licensing, and watch legal havoc that ensues after a couple years as unforeseen implications start fucking up the copyright of books, TV episodes and movies, making their copyright status so murky, debatable and indeterminate that they essentially become legally piratable."'' and while GFDL might have some of those same problems, '''it''' isn't the license they're urging people to switch to.
:::::::::::So if both licenses are '''equally bad''', I'd much rather stick with the one we currently have rather than switch to the one that's probably going to be challenged in the supreme court 5 years from now.
:::::::::::Or at the ''very'' least have a conversation where the burden is on CC-BY-SA3 to show some ''benefit'' to us for switching, and not on me to prove GFDL is better. Why is our action simply being ''taken for granted'' here? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:04, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::Well, I understand how ''copyright'' actually works, because I've seen people have to deal with it. I don't understand your comment on the whole deal, no, because it makes no sense.
::::::::::::It's true that if Hasbro objects to our wiki writing about Transformers we could technically re-write it to refer to something similar but different enough to avoid Hasbro's copyright. However, unlike your "Dr. Jeckel vs. the Moorlocks" example, our doing that would be useless. In this case, it's not our value-added elements that make the wiki useful, it's the fact that the wiki is about Transformers. Take away the "about Transformers" part, and our wiki becomes pointless. Hasbro's copyright ''is'' the intrinsic value of this wiki.
::::::::::::So yes, it is an abstract implication, but it's not because nobody cares.
::::::::::::As for why switch, it basically boils down to: if we are compliant with the GDFL, then switching to the CC-BY-SA means we have the same restrictions, ''and'' will also have our info be incompatible for usage with anyone who stays on the GDFL, and we'll be able to require attribution. Basically, it gives us some benefits above the existing GDFL's benefits, without adding or removing any restrictions.
::::::::::::If we're ''not'' compliant with the GDFL due to Hasbro's copyright claims, then it turns out we're not bound by the GDFL anyway, because we never had the legal right to claim that license on our work. In which case, again, we get to ignore all this and switch to whatever license someplace like Memory Alpha has.
::::::::::::But in either case, switching gives us benefits over the current GDFL. So it really is on you to prove why staying with the GDFL is better, sorry. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 08:31, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Whaaat? No, Derik's right. Windmills and copyright do not work that way. J. K. Rowling does not have the right to re-publish Dumbledore/Grindelwald Harry Potter [[fanfic]]. Original owners have the right to stop distribution of unauthorized derivatives, but they don't have the right to anything not already created by themselves. (So that would mean yes, ironically, fanfiction authors could C&D original authors infringing on the fanfiction's copyrights. But somehow I think they would restrain themselves.) 
And if we're violating the GFDL by using it to document Transformers, we aren't then "not bound;" because that would mean our existence is illegal, and we don't get to throw up our hands and say "Well we're already illegal, might as well be illegal in a totally different way!" So no, we can't just ignore everything and switch to any license but CC-By-SA-3.0. --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 13:49, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
:I know that Hasbro doesn't have the right to simply go ahead and publish our work without any agreement with us. But, based on my experiences with seeing other fan creators dealing with legal things regards their work, they do have the right to either make us take our work down, or relinquish our rights to it in some manner. We don't have the right to force Hasbro to use our work according to certain terms as long as it's a derivative of their work.
:As for our existence being illegal, well yeah, if you want to get technical, we're already as illegal as all other fanworks anyway. I don't see what the validity or otherwise of the contract the work was created under has to do with it, if the contract allows you to do that type of work.
:But essentially, the core of my confusion with Derik's concerns is: I don't see how he could be claiming we can ever force Hasbro to follow our terms on derivative works, when our work is already a derivative of Hasbro's work, and thus we already have to follow Hasbro's terms on derivative work. I mean, it's not that his concerns don't make sense to me from a general perspective. It's that they only make sense to me if we're the originator on top of the derivative work chain, which isn't the case here. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:34, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
::''based on my experiences with seeing other fan creators dealing with legal things regards their work, they do have the right to either make us take our work down, or relinquish our rights to it in some manner.''
::They have the right to threaten or strongarm someone, and the person they're threatening has the right to cave. But they have no ability to "make you relinquish your rights."
::The idea that New Line owns ''everything'' in any work I created means that they'd be claiming ownership not just of my Mary Sue, but also of Fox's Aliens. So that's clearly not true on the face of it. There is a completely unprooven legal theory that a copyright owner could actually ''own'' all the value-added additions made to a derived work... but it has '''literally''' never been tested (because Paramount has no desire to own a lot of Kirk/Spock bondage fics) and there is a strong suspicion that if it ever ''went'' to trial, the entire concept would be shot down.
::Regardless-- you're '''again''' arguing "my experience," and that's the ''fundamental'' source of the musunderstanding here. You're talking about how the law is actually '''implemented'''. I'm talking about what the law '''is'''. In '''your experience''', no one cares if you go through a red light if there's no one around. But I'm telling you it's '''still illegal'''.
::And since the ''kind'' of illegal we're talking about can have a slow corrosive effect on Hasbro's copyrights, that abstract legality could come back to bite us ''and'' Hasbro in the ass. So I'd like to have a real, ''actual'' discussion about this. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:54, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Um, the entire ''point'' of copyright is that you have control over how your copyrighted work is used. If you create something using copyrighted work, then the copyright holder very much has control over what you do with it, because you're using their copyrights. Otherwise, why have copyright to begin with?
:::Now, if you remove the copyrighted material from your work, ''then'', yes, the copyright holder indeed has no control over your work, because it has no copyrighted material. Problem is that, while that might help out a fancreator if they can change their work into something original, it does us no good, because the entire point of our wiki is that it's about Transformers specifically. We could technically rewrite it to not be about Transformers, but that would just defeat the point.
:::My ''experience'' is that fanworks are always illegal, it's just that most of the time companies turn their head because usually it nets them more goodwill and publicity than anything the fanwork is taking away from them. But it's within a company's rights to turn around and tell you to either take your fanwork down, change it so it no longer contains their copyrights, or obtain a waiver from them/sign over your rights to continue displaying it.
:::Basically, the reason this is weird is because, you seem like you're saying that we can tell people who create derivative work based from our work how to use it, yet also saying that Hasbro doesn't have the same right to tell us how to use the derivative work we created from their work. Why would we have certain copyright rights, yet Hasbro not have those same rights? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:28, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Ehh, you know what, this is all getting way, way off track. The only real question worth considering that's been raised with all this is whether we had a right to claim our work fits under the GDFL to begin with. If we did, then switching makes sense. If we didn't, then the contract is technically void/annulled, and we need to switch to some new license regardless. Either way, staying with the GDFL itself seems pointless to me. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:19, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::And, as beautifully Machiavellian as Derik's contamination scenario is, it still wouldn't negate "fair use" anyway in the case of such a small "lift". - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:44, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::But this isn't ''about'' fair use. It's about people who've read Lawrence Lessig's book and attended Disinfocon having a pissing contest and trying to upend how Copyright works.
:::::::See how casually you said it? Suddenly instead of ''us'' claiming fair use use of Hasbro's intellectual property-- Hasbro is having to claim fair use of ''our'' property. And fair use is never ''proven'' until it's challenged-- so ''any'' instance of "fair use" derived work ''massively'' weakens Hasbro's copyright on their own material-- because anyone ''wanting'' to claim their work is now SA3 is is now free to do so... and the burden is shifted onto ''Hasbro'' to hire lawyers and prove it's ''not''.
:::::::That kind of mad-cow subversion tactics would normally make me grin like an idiot-- but just because I approve of malotov-wielding free-culturists are planning the legal equivalent of the World Bank Protests '''doesn't mean I want to be stuck in the middle of it.''' -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:56, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:#Derik causing problems? ''Never...'' :p
:#'''It's a binary choice - the GDFL3 licence ONLY allows us to change to CC-BY-SA3 and THEN ONLY if we do it before the 1st of August, 2009.''' The only way we could change in any other direction would be to track down every user who's ever contributed and either get them to relicense their contributions or excise their contributions and derivatives thereof from the wiki. Given that, thanks to Mr Bookworm, we don't even HAVE a complete list of contributors...
:#I think you're getting Daken mixed up with Erista (thank you Eric J. Moreels...) there
:#McFly, not McFeely.
:#The main point is number 2 - we don't have the freedom to custom-design a licence. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Sure we do! It just has to be a license that doesn't violate any of the GFDL or CC-BY-SA3 requirements! That's not hard, I do object-oriented programming! Same basic principle!
:::(In all seriousness, from a legal standpoint, you'd probably set up sort of "type-coercion comfort trap", which is like a Dan Brown novel written by a lawyer with a minor in game theory. I'd want to get a lawyer to ''check'' it-- I know a few-- but I'm fairly sure you ''could'' do it, legally.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm a tad confused about what you're saying - the GDFL and the CC-BY-SA are both designed to ''limit restrictions'' on the (re)use of work. If you're ''adding more restrictions'' than either specifies (i.e., if I licence my work to you under the condition that you must give a copy to anyone who fulfils condition X, and must not give a copy to anyone who ''doesn't''; you can't then impose condition Y, which means ''not only that'' you restrict who you give a copy to ''to a subset'' of group X will receive a copy from you, but that ''you DO give copies to'' a subset of group ''Not-X''...), then you're in breach of the basic licence, ja? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:44, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::You offer s separate license with GFDL+ (or CC+) permission for new content (generated after the date) for specific commercial purposes. On the date of adoption, the two liscences are exactly equal, but as time goes on, the GFDL/CC+ becomes increasingly attractive, because it offers a commercial reuser a ''better'' legal foothold on their own material. You are giving them ''more'' rights to the material, provided they operate according to certain restrictions. They ''could'' always choose to license the content under vanilla GFDL (or whatever,) but that ''gives up'' the increased privileges they have for the post-adoption material.
:::::The beauty is that such a liscence need not differentiate as to ''what'' part of the material is eligible for one liscence but not the other... it's a ''diffuse'' legal benefit over the content that their lawyers would ''force'' them to choose-- but '''we''' are not forcing them to choose; the content remains accessible under GFDL, as the GFDL requires, but we offer incentives of ''increased'' re-usage rights for newer content in exchange for restricted action.
:::::...this isn't going to make any sense without a chart, is it? There are force-gradients involved. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:33, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay Derik, simple basic question - if Creative Commons licences are so set for copyright Armageddon, how come Memory Alpha (one of the biggest wikis on the internets, and one which many ST creatives - including the writers of this year's movie [who also happen to write Transformers movies] - have freely admitted to using) has always been under a CC licence without Viacom/Paramount/CBS imploding? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:04, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:Because Memory Alpha is licensed under <tt>Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Generic license</tt>. Note the absence of the "Share and share alike" clause, which in the source of the Copyright Armageddon I'm ranting about. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Okay, Derik. Bottom-line it for me. How likely is this to result in Tina Turner forcing me to fight in a cage with a brutally strong man with the mind of a child?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:04, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Well, Tina Turner is signed with Virgin, and so was The Verve, whose "Bitter Sweet Symphony," got the band sued out of existence due to a 3-second sampling they claimed was "fair use," but Mick Jagger felt was a big enough use to be a copyright violation. The courts agreed, and for a 3 second sample, they lost all rights tot he song and Jagger is now listed as the songwriter.
:::So I'd say the odds of Tina Turner smacking you around for not paying attention to this important and non-trivial legal issue involving copyright are in the range of at ''least'' 30-35% if we plow ahead heedlessly. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Wow. Okay. Lots of words to catch up on all of a sudden. Glad I sorta-started all this, I guess? 
Going waaay back to Derik's first question: [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#Comparison_of_Licenses There is, indeed, a breakdown. In table form.] 
''"which is like a Dan Brown novel written by a lawyer with a minor in game theory"'' I would totally read that. --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 00:13, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't trust that table. I dont' feel informed after viewing it, I feel brushed off.
:I think I need to re-read me the full GFDL to do a proper comparison.
:<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> I was hoping I wouldn't have to read this thing again. Last time I had drugs to make it better. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:20, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay, so from what you're saying, the problem with Creative Commons is that... by jumping on the CC bandwagon we might become part of a bigger target in the culture wars or otherwise pull Hasbro into the line of fire, because a CC-licensed thing is more likely to get its day in court someday, because it's popular. Whereas the GFDL, with which we shall stay for ever and ever, will safely gather dust in the FSF's basement for the next hundred years where the light of legal precedent can never touch it.

And also a problem is if Hasbro or its licensees try to reuse our content and unwittingly license their own work under Creative Commons. Honestly, if they make a mistake like that... it's their mistake. It's no different from plagiarizing a random Transformers blog. It shouldn't happen, and it's not our responsibility if someone, somewhere might forget to do due diligence in a hypothetical future. --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 21:33, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

===Oh, hey there===
[[Image:Meta-Wikiaccbysa.jpg|thumb|right|250px|]]
Look who else switched to CC-BY-SA. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:Pfft. We shouldn't not switch just because Wikia is.
:I finished auditing the fine print of both licenses last night. (Whoever said the CC one is easier to read: Lies.) I need to digest 'em... I think the GFDL is a better license for where we are ''now'', but CC-BY-SA includes a clause I was ''hoping'' would be in GFDL that might play into future legal wrangling. (Simply because-- it's a license intended to be used by artists, and it doesn't handle our copyright situation well any more than GFDL does.)
:Regardless which one we pick, I think TFWiki needs to do ''something'' unique to better position ourselves, legally. I'm still ruminating what that might be. (Fortunately, we've got time yet.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:41, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::FWIW, I got a reply from the GNU folks, and the CC-BY-SA3 is indeed the only license we can switch to under this particular allowance. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 00:58, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I got that. They had to amend the GFDL to even make that possible. I don't think we can even make it CC-BY-SA3-NC.
:::So if we ''do'' intend to wriggle around it somehow, it will probably require some vigorous legal calisthenics. (Fortunately legalese doesn't intimidate me.)
:::I just haven't figured out which license is a better starting point for those calisthenics yet. Maybe I'll blog about the subject to get my thoughts straight. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::::The full reply, if it helps:
:::::Unfortunately, the GFDL 1.3 (which enables the relicensing) specifically lists CC-BY-SA3 as the license that a wiki can migrate to, and so that is the only license available under this relicensing provision.

:::::In addition, a non-commercial license is not really a free license, instead it is considered semi-free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#semi-freeSoftware). The GFDL (as well as all GNU licenses) permits commercial use and distribution. While I understand your concerns, being able to use and distribute a work for any purpose, even a commercial purpose, is a part of the freedom that we work towards protecting here at the FSF. Thank you once again for your interest, and good luck with your project.}}
::::--[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:46, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Right, any gymnastics would have to take place outside of this licensing provision, which we're not allowed to do.
:::::(Law can be wonderfully fun when you see it as the illusionary cultural construct-- like a monster in a fairy tale whose ''terms'' must be met, but is stupid and easily tricked by turning its words against it.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:15, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::You see, this is exactly the kind of granola-crunching BS that I'm worried about. "Woo, look at us! We're so clever, Information Wants To Be Free, Fight The Power!" Er, no. Information wants nothing. It's data. It's a thing, an inanimate pile of electron states jumbled up into a system which we can comprehend. We can claim that we Mean No Harm, that we're a Free Information Repository For All Things Transformers, but in the end, we have screencaps, quotes, bios, comic summaries, and roughly 25 years worth of history all crammed into this site. If Hasbro wanted to, they could shut us down '''right now''' just by scaring us with enough of a nasty C&D. I don't exactly see us armed with a high-powered law firm, for one, and second, unless someone in this thread *coughDerikcough* wants to produce a JD and back his comments with '''actual legal expertise,''' we're merely guessing as to what we can and can't get away with. On top of all of that, flaunting what we can theoretically get away with on a public web page with an ideally-infinite revision history means that you've just peed in the swimming pool that is the Internet. Perhaps we can make this all easier by just charging for access, thumbing our noses at the law, and even hosting a torrent of the movie, just to make damned sure that we get dragged into court? Smartassery + Law is a combination best left to those who have studied the practice of law. --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 21:09, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::Your sarcastiggestion seems like the opposite of what's going on, if the goal's more to "get away with" adding ''more'' pro-Hasbro restrictions to ourselves/the content. And how does their granola-crunching email impact anything? That's them. Not us.
::::::Anyway, I think there's one other plus point to a switch; the CC licenses get updated at a reasonable rate. There's a chance the folks in charge will listen to concerns about fanwork and adopt language into version 4.0 or 5.0 to fit it better-- they seem to [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5908 solicit feedback] like that. There's not much of a chance of our use case being relevant to version 2.0 of a license intended for software documentation... ---[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 22:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

===Going back to the well===
Alright, in my mind we need to re-center this discussion. The first question is:
#'''Why did we originally want to re-license?'''

Which, scrolling up, seems to be "because it would provide a legal barrier to Wikia stealing what new content we've generated since the move." This, as also shown above, has become a moot point due to Wikia re-licensing in the ''exact same fashion''.

So, that particular aim coming to naught, we instead need to ask ''these'' two questions.
#'''Is there any remaining benefit to re-licensing?'''
#'''Does said benefit outweigh the hassle of doing it?'''

I look forward to answers to these.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:33, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

:So, uh... I've been drafting [http://deriksmith.livejournal.com/41337.html#cutid1 this blog entry about the switch] for about two weeks. It's not big on answers, but it provides a thorough comparison, and some worst-case-scenarios.
:I'm really not sure which license TFWiki ''should'' choose. After review, I think that the chances of the switch turning TFWii into a copyright-eroding-machine are minimal... if only because vast portions of CC-BY-SA3 are arguably invalid on TFWiki because the license was never intended for wikis, and certainly never intended for media-fandom wikis.
:I think we ''do'' need to figure out something that does properly address our status as a media-fandom wiki-- whether it's a legalistic (but non-binding) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_(United_States) mission statement] that underlines how we believe this license to apply to our unique situation or something else.
:I'm leaning towards 'something else' or 'both,' but I'm a bit at a loss about which license is actually the better starting point for it. If CC-BY-SA3 is going to cause legal problems (and it '''will''') we need to do something that grounds it out and minimizes the hassle it poses to Hasbro.
:I've got some vague ideas about possible attacks... I'm gonna see if they work better for one license or the other as I develop 'em. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:07, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
::My thought was that, what Fleb said earlier makes sense about the Creative Commons people being more likely to listen to user comments about future updates. In contrast, the Free Software people seem pretty dead set on their licenses always providing completely free use, and don't care about accomodating copyrights. So even if the licenses are functionally similar now, the CC people might be willing to provide a more fitting alternative to switch to in the future, whereas the GDFL will not.
::In the meantime, an additional disclaimer might be wise, I agree. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 09:08, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
:::The GFDL doesn't recognize 'compatible licenses', which content can be freely ported to. CC-BY-SA3 does, at least insofar that it makes provision for their existence (whether or not any ''actually'' exist...? I have no idea.)
:::So it's at least ''possible'' that at some point in the future Creative Commons might come out with CC-BY-SA3-MMC (for wikis) or CC-BY-SA3-MMC-MF (addressing the problems specific to media-fandom wikis) and declare that they are compatible with CC-BY-SA3 and allow wikis to be relicensed over to that version if they meet the requirements.
:::Though a longshot, any legal 'relief' on that end seems much less likely to come from the FSF. (GFDL's governing body.) The relicensing amendment in GFDL 1.3 strikes me as their way of washing their hands of wikis. ''"You fit our license badly and we don't want to deal with you. Go bother [[Wikipedia:Lawrence Lessig|Larry]]."''
:::The ''fundamental'' problem is that CC-BY-SA3 and GFDL are both unsuited to wikis, so when they're ''applied'' to wikis, what they actually ''mean'' becomes fuzzy-- it's like [[Wikipedia:Marihuana Tax Act of 1937|using tarrif law to restrict the sale of marijuana]]. "Okay, we bent an existing law sideways to fit this under it... but now it's so warped that some of the fundamental assumptions of the original law don't apply in the new situation... so how are we going apply it?"
:::Since the "Copyright Meltdown" scenario described in my blog ''largely'' stems from the non-binding GUI imposing an expansive interpretation on derived works, a non-binding "Predacon Shell Program" (mission statement? Signing statement?) on our part could ''probably'' be said to override that. Acknowledging some of the intrinsic problems with mating the requirements of CC-BY-SA3 (mostly author credit) with the realities of how Wikis work and saying 'this is how we think we fulfill these requirements' ''could'' cover a most of the other problems. It'd basically be a published Opinion Draft-- not legally binding in itself any more than CC's GUI is (so we're not liable if we get it wrong somehow) but formal interpretation of how we think this license-- which is in many ways ''horribly'' unsuited for wikis-- applies to our circumstances and why.
:::Basically, we'd be CC-BY-SA3 with a signing statement. (There's no real reason you couldn't do the same with GFDL, but I think CC-BY-SA3's 'if any part is non-enfordcable' clause, as well as the fact it ''already'' uses a non-binding GUI makes CC more suited for this kind of 'soft interpretation.' GFDL is much more rigid by virtue of its narrow focus. ) Since signing statement's aren't ''laws'', just formalizations of an ''understanding how laws are executed'', It wouldn't violate GFDL 1.3's "You can port to CC-BY-SA3 '''only'''" thing-- we ''would'' be porting to CC-BY-SA3. We're not modifying the license in any way, if someone disagrees with our interpretation... they're pretty much free to ignore it.
:::It's [[Wikipedia:Cover_your_ass|CYA]]. If there's problems with CC-BY-SA3 later, it at least shows we ''tried'' to address them, and formalizing our own thinking on the subject to some degree insulates us from being victimized of someone with a more radical interpretation (no more legally binding than our own!) of how CC-BY-SA3 applies. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:27, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

===Seriously you guys . . .===
If Wikia wanted to copy your work, they could already do it, '''because you already put it under a free license'''. That was the deal - and it was a deal with everyone, not just with people you like. Yes, it means Hasbro ''could'' take your work and sell it, or Wikia ''could'' take your work and put ads on it, without any further notice. You already gave them a license to do it. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. Be thankful it allowed ''you'' to take the content with you when you left.

There are two main reasons for switching to CC-BY-SA:
#CC-BY-SA makes it easier for reusers to make use of those rights. Specifically, you don't have to print out an entire copy of the GFDL and attach it to your work in order to legally reuse it, and that "human-readable summary" makes people a lot more comfortable than trying to parse the GFDL.
#Creative Commons licenses (and CC-BY-SA in particular) are more widely used than the GFDL. This is a side-effect of them being easier to understand. Because of this, there is more chance that people interested in using another person's work will have a compatible license. This works both ways - if this wiki wants to use CC-BY-SA text, it can't right now.

Neither changes the basic rights given: they both allow commercial use with the provision of attribution and the requirement for continued distribution under the license.

As a corollary of the second reason: If you ''don't'' switch to CC-BY-SA as your main license, content here will not be usable on Wikipedia, and you risk not being able to use their content in the future (because new work may not all be GFDL-licensed). I don't know how important this is for you, but that's how it is.

Wikimedia [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update engineered this switch] because it furthers their mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Put simply, it's easier to disseminate free content with CC-BY-SA. The GFDL included measures that were fine for the intended purpose, but are cumbersome in an age where people may wish to use part of an individual page rather than a whole textbook.

There may be other restrictions on some uses of your work, such as trademark rights. These are unaffected by the license you choose, as both choices pertain only to the copyright in the work. With regards to concerns over use of Hasbro's material; if you were violating copyright with the GFDL, you will continue to do so under the CC-BY-SA. It can't give you the right to distribute their work under the license, nor is it more permissive in including sections of non-free content, or on disallowing commercial uses of the work. You cannot modify either license to do this, nor are GNU or Creative Commons likely to do so.

WikiFur [http://community.livejournal.com/wikifur/73467.html switched to CC-BY-SA] (while retaining GFDL as a secondary license) last month because it made sense for us. I think it makes sense for this wiki, too. You have other issues common to many fan sites that are not addressed by this license change, but that is not a reason for avoiding a switch; CC-BY-SA still provides benefits that the GFDL does not. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] 10:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
:''If Wikia wanted to copy your work, they could already do it, '''because you already put it under a free license'''.''
:That's certainly true. Frankly I encourage them to do so-- Google has some notion of where new content showed up FIRST. If Wikia just bogarted our content, it'd almost certainly ''hurt'' their Google rating. That said, the admins on the Wikia Transformers wiki seem to have put their foot down and told users not to just port content from here, agreeing with our basic premise that the Wikia site needs to develop its own cultural identity if it ever hopes to prosper.
:And actually ''at the moment'' Wikia '''cannot''' copy our work (at least not any version of articles made after June 23) because they are a CC-BY-SA3 Massive Multiauthor Collaboration, and we are a GFDL MMC. The right to port our GFDL work to CC-BY-SA3 until August 1 does ''not'' lie with individual users (and cannot, as I understand it, be done piecemeal) it lies with the site operator. If we ultimately decided ''not'' to re-license, then any post-June-23rd article ports made to Wikia would be illegal-- because the content they were porting would ''never'' have been made available under CC-BY-SA3.
:''it's easier to disseminate free content with CC-BY-SA. The GFDL included measures that were fine for the intended purpose, but are cumbersome in an age where people may wish to use part of an individual page rather than a whole textbook.''
:But we wish to disseminate '''non-free''' content-- or at least a mix of free a non-free content. CC-BY-SA3 was intended for use by artists remixing one another's work freely... it doesn't address copyrighted or fair use content mixed in any more than GFDL did.
:And there's some debate whether or not we even intend to ''disseminate'' the content. Someone (Mcfeely?) raised a question about a hypothetical cell-phone app that would re-use our content. There's already [http://pda.wareseeker.com/HOBBIES/transformers-tech-spec-databases-4.7.zip/317886 a cell-phone app of Transformers tech-specs] that's a walking copyright violation, and we'd rather not draw negative attention from Hasbro if a similar infringing application was made from our content. Does Hasbro care about cell-phone apps? Not really, but [[Glu|Glu mobile]] who ''pays'' for an exclusive license to develop Transformers-related cell-phone content might. Those kind of competing unlicensed applications de-value their own license.
:I don't think there's a consensus about whether or not we want to even ''try'' to control that kind of thing... (or if we even can, legally) but it at least bears ''consideration''. TFWiki.net generally ''tries'' to respect Hasbro's business interests, but the degree to which we even ''want'' that to be a factor in this decision...? Unknown.
:And CC-BY-SA3 is no less cumbersome a fit for wikis than GFDL was-- it's just that CC-BY-SA3 includes an "if any part of this license proves invalid or unenforceable" clause that (arguably) relieves some of that tension.
:''if you were violating copyright with the GFDL, you will continue to do so under the CC-BY-SA''
:Yes, but GFDL at least had the excuse of being ''grandfathered'' stupidity-- the site was already licensed under GFDL when the current community took it over. Whatever we choose here becomes a ''conscious'' choice.
:And dual-licensing like WikiFur has is a possibility-- it certainly provides for maximum data portability. But is data portability our primary concern? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:31, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
::I don't think a conscious choice would have any more moral or legal weight than a conscious decision to do nothing would. We already have the dilemma, ignoring it would just be another way of choosing. Eh, dual-licensing would at least stop the deliberation from becoming moot in two weeks. It'd be like standing in two lines at the same time! --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 17:01, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

==Inching toward resolution==
I've been drafting [http://deriksmith.livejournal.com/42435.html some thoughts and CYA boilerplate in regard to the GFDL]. Serious academic discussion about transforming space robots and time-traveling quantum copyright.

(It's incomplete, but it the general thrust of the approach I'm suggesting.)

'''Unrelated:''' Amar asked me if the Mini-Con 10-pack had been canceled. Does anyone know its status? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:30, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
:The below looks solid to me, but I would encourage those with more of a head for license-fu than me to look it over. Fleb particularly. As for the Mini-Con set... which one? There's a few.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:41, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

===Suggested direction===
Nnf. Okay, I've been poking at this all month, but we've got about 12 hours to officially ratify the change, so this is my thinking.

We want a solution that will:
# Keep our information open
# Cover our ass legally
# Provide some basic protection for HasTak's interests.
# Not be something we're gonna have to worry about.
*McFeely also suggested that we'd like something to prevent not-us people from using our content in ways that would piss Hasbro off '''Example:''' There are already cell-phone aps that're tech-spec databases. We'd like to ''not'' have the same thing happen with our articles, because those kinds of unofficial applications reduce the $$ Hasbro can charge GLU for the mobile license. And frankly it's a bit unfair to GLU's developers... how can their content hope to compete with our articles, which have THOUSANDS of hours sunk into 'em? (This is kinda abstract, since Glu mostly does games... but they've recently expanded into e-toys, and the tech-spec database ''is'' scoring a lot of downloads.)
*I also suggest that it's in our best interests to try and discourage ''official'' publications from the wholesale re-use of our material. '''Example:''' At the tail end of the Dreamwave era, someone was goign to publish a 'Transformers Field Guide' (or something) that I believe was nothing but Dreamwave MtMtE art and tech-specs. "[[Wikipedia:Shovelware|Shovelware]]" publications basically. They have their place in the market... but I'd just as soon it wasn't our text feeding them.
*Finally, I'd like to make some provision for 'oopsies.' If IDW accidentally re-uses an image off this site that we ''actually do own'' on a monitor somewhere, then it would (arguably) make the entire resulting issue CC-BY-SA3. (There is only a ''very'' narrow range of graphics for which this could happen, but it ''is'' possible.) Similarly, if a guidebook, or even an issue, grabs ''short'' bits of verbatim text off here and forgets to rewrite them... it could ''potentially'' throw the resulting project into legal limbo. (They can claim fair use, but anyone else can claim it's ''not'' fair use, and until it goes to court both views are unprooven.) So we'd like to find a mechanism ''other'' than Fair Use (which is greatly weakened if they forget to claim it in the indicia) that allows some sort of 'minimal' re-usage of our content in commercial products, simply for the purposes of error-catching... while also preventing the 'mass' re-use in commercial products.

So, with all that in mind... this is my thinking:
* '''Switch to CC-BY-SA3, but with caveats'''
**[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ This] is not CC-BY-SA3. That's a non-binding graphical overlay. [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode This] is the '''real''' CC-BY-SA3, the code we'd be switching to.
** The Creative Commons GUI makes some very ''expansive'' claims about Copyright... it basically uses the "Disney perspective" that there is ''no such thing'' as fair use, and all usage of this content must pass through this license... and thus the resulting product (Spotlight: Roller in the above example) ''also'' becomes CC-BY-SA3-- an 'infectious' license. Some wriggly non-compliance clauses mean that even if IDW ''doesn't'' properly acknowledge their sources (officially signing on to the terms of the license) their work ''still'' gets infected.
** The actual legal code of the license uses a much narrower definition (because the expansive definition has no legal basis except in practice.)
** We cannot modify the terms of the license we're switching to (it's part of the terms of relicencing, it ''has'' to be CC-BY-SA3) but we ''can'' dump the Creative Commons GUI; it's just a summary of the license, and has no legal value. We replace the CC GUI with our own introductory summary. This is completely, 100% legal, because our summary carries no more legal force than their own does. It just makes clearer that we view the CC-BY-SA3 as covering a ''sane'' definition of copyright, not the Disney version; which eliminates most of the 'infectious touch' problem.

So that keeps our information open and portable (we'll be on the same CC-BY-SA3 license as everyone else.) It covers our ass legally because it's just an opinion/mission statement, and not even one that's asserting anything outrageous. It heads off a lot of potential legal hassles our license could cause for Hasbro. And it shouldn't require much (or any) upkeep.

There's not really anything we can ''do'' to prevent unofficial cell-phone programs from using our content... but we can strongly assert that the result is CC-BY-SA3 (which it is under the terms of our license.) which means they are free to sell such a program... but anyone who buys it is then free to make as many copies as he wants, throw it up on bitTorrent, etc. (It also makes putting copy protection on the resulting program illegal.) So we can't ''prevent'' such use... but ''enforcing'' what the license already says at least makes it commercially unappealing; if someone wants to do it, they have to do it out of love, not to make a quick buck.

Finally (and I'm a bit less sure of this) I suggest that TFWiki.net adopt a ''second license'' to address the oopsies thing, and limit large-scale commercial re-use. A license governing our content that is ''only'' available to someone who ''already'' has the official Hasbro Transformers license. This means there would be 4 ways commercial users could use our content;
#You could use our content under CC-BY-SA3; allowing to use as much content as you want... but it ''also'' means that anyone can ''legally'' make copies of the resulting product and distribute them freely. (Very unappealing for a commercial production.)
#Or you could use part of our content and claim fair use. But fair use is an ''unprooven assertion'', someone can always claim that you used ''too much'' content to quality as fair use which makes the resulting product CC-BY-SA3, able to to be copied freely. The burden falls upon IDW (in our ongoing Spotlight: Roller example) to go to court and proove to a judge that it ''was'' fair use before they can demand that sort of distribution be stopped. (Well, they can demand it right away... but any site hosting it has a ''legitimate'' basis to ignore them until they've proven fair use.) Commercially viable... but it makes lawyers sweat. The net result is telling Hasbro people they can't ''ever'' use ''anything''. (Disney goes a step further and forbids writers on its TV shows from reading fan forums, or even letting their e-mail be known publicly. They don't want a situation where anyone can ''ever'' claim they stole their idea.)
#You could use our content and not make any claim at all, trusting that a small enough usage will be considered fair use by default. But the terms of CC-BY-SA3 encourages ''any'' usage of our content, if no explicit usage claim was base, to be interpreted as CC-BY-SA3. (You don't have to acknowledge CC-BY-SA3 for it to be in effect.) Effectively the same as #1, and commercially unviable.
#You could use our 'Official License,' whose terms allow someone who ''already'' has the Transformers license from Hasbro or Takara to use a ''small'' portion of our content ''without'' the result becoming CC-BY-SA3. This is much more ''restrictive'' than the CC-BY-SA3 license, but it also would allow IDW to steal one of our graphics and slap it into a monitor bank ''without'' having to worry about legal ramifications... because they'd have a free-and-clear right to do so.
**The '''real''' benefit is that (as it currently stands,) if part of our content slips into an official production and the Indicia ''fails'' to make note of the fact... the ''default'' assumption is that such usage must be CC-BY-SA3. (A failure to document results in an effective license to pirate.) This is because there is no other possibility; any usage ''must'' be Fair use or CC-BY-SA3.. and those are ''both'' crappy options that essentially leave ''Spotlight: Roller'' in a legal shit-bind.
**But if there ''was'' a 3rd option that gave IDW free-and-clear use of a small amount of content, then ''obviously'' any commercial usage would fall under this "Official License," no rational person could argue otherwise. Basically; this is an 'oopsie' catcher. If IDW uses some of our stuff by accident, their ass is ''automatically'' covered by the fact that, as an official TF licensee, we afford them a ''legal right'' to use small drips and drabs of our content without having to worry about legal problems. However that right ''lapses'' if they start using it wholesale. (Preventing the "shovelware" problem.)

There are some wrinkles here; we cannot legally re-license our ''existing'' content under a different license, the only way to use the current version of the "Optimus Prime (G1)" is to claim fair use, or under CC-BY-SA3. So if IDW excerpted a paragraph for something and claimed our "Official License," they would, in fact, be claiming Fair use.

What we ''can'' do is issue '''all future edits''' under both licenses. So that every ''addition, modification and re-write'' of the "Optimus Prime (G1)" article is licensed separately under CC-BY-SA3 and our official License. (You agree to this by clicking 'submit.') So while if IDW excerpted a chunk ''today'' , they would in effect be claiming fair use. but if they excerpted it ''a year from now'', the 30% of the text which was new ''would'' be covered under our Official License, the other 70% would be fair use. (Which is really no different than how everything works now. When we moved from Wikia, we technically licensed our ''text'' from them... but we didn't license our images from Wikia-- we claimed fair use all over again. This sort of asynchronous licensing happens all the time.) In 5 years, 70% of the text of that paragraph might be Official use, and the remaining 30% Fair Use.. The ''amount'' of ass-covering offered by the official license would just keeps increasing.

And frankly, no one cares that the Official License has a 1:1 correlation to Fair use on the day that's it's issued. The point is to afford official publications a legitimate legal refuge if some of our shit slips in. How ''good'' of a refuge that is really isn't that important. (Though ''really'', I bet if we asked all our Power Users to explicitly re-release their past contributions to the site under the Official License, we could start with 70% protection on day 1 and go up from there. We just can't legally ''force'' them to do so.)

...so yeah. That's my thinking. The second license could be plain English; we don't really care about 'precision' because we're not trying to exert a lot of control; it's really about ''releasing'' control, which is much easier. I think the solutions I'm outlining here are the ''right'' ones. They make no real ''fundamental'' alteration to our existing legal situation, but what they ''would'' do is remove almost ''all'' of the unspoken legal 'stress' Hasbro feels with our existence. Hasbro ''knows'' their people read our site, but because of the way GFDL and CC-BY-SA3 'contaminate' all derived works, one slip on their part could (at least potentially) set off a lawsuit. (it doesn't even have to be from us, it could be some non-Transfan asshole.)

Let's ''de-escalate'' this and create a situation where everyone can feel relaxed and no longer worry that a single mistake carries horrible consequences. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:32, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

== Relicensing vote ==

TFWiki.net has until midnight tonight to decide whether if we want to switch from a GFDL license to a CC-BY-SA3 license.

I've been studying the issue, and I have [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Relicensing#Suggested_direction|some thoughts]] on the direction I think we should go in terms of licensing. (As long as we're switching over, let's actually get it ''right''.) But none of that has to be done ''now'', the actual relicensing has to be performed tonight, and I'm calling for a vote.

*[[User:Derik]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:38, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Jeysie ]] still votes to '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:40, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Rosicrucian]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3 and is in favor of Derik's opinion draft on potential wrinkles and assertions we can make.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:43, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Starfield]] votes we '''drop all licenses''' and go without one. I normally wouldn't give my opinion on this, but since you seem to be soliciting my vote, there it is. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:01, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
**[[User:Derik]] points out that that would make us GFDL, (whether we acknowledged it or not) because we don't have a legal right to drop their license. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:05, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Dead Metal]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3 [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 16:03, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:DrSpengler]] (who is at work and cannot log in) votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. --DrSpengler (at work)
*[[User:Lonegamer78]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 16:57, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:MrBlud]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. [[User:MrBlud|MrBlud]] 17:17, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Jackpot]] votes we '''switch''' to 007 and shoot anyone who steals our shit. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 19:14, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:Shellshock]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. [[User:Shellshock|Shellshock]] 20:02, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:TX55]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3.
--'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 21:07, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:ACIDSTORM92]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3.--[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 00:02, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
*Nuts, I missed the deadline while I was working, and didn't see the vote listed in Recent Changes until now. FWIW, [[User:Apcog]] would've voted to '''switch'''. I'm still not 100% certain of all aspects of CC-BY-SA3, but it currently seems better than standing pat.--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 02:21, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
**Language in the GFDL relicensing clause simply says 'By August 1.' Your vote is still valid for [http://www.worldtimezone.com/time/wtzresult.php?CiID=42241 4 hours yet.] -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:56, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:abates]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 04:32, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
*[[User:FFN]] votes we '''switch''' to CC-BY-SA3. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 07:29, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

=== Relicencing vote outcome ===

<div style="border:solid 1px #999;background-color:#f9f9f9; padding:2em;margin: 1em 2em;">On July 31, 2009, TFWiki.net conducted a community vote about whether our content licensing should remain GFDL or switch to CC-BY-SA3 as afforded under the provisions of GFDL 1.3

In low turnout, 86% of votes cast were in favor of the switch to CC-BY-SA3. No votes were in favor of remaining to GFDL, and two votes cast in favor of general lawlessness.

The result of this voting being in line with previous general discussion on the subject, and 3 of 3 administrators being in favor of the change, I assert that at a time of 23:59:59 GMT-12 the operating body of TFWiki.net had voted to switch to CC-BY-SA3 and declare on my bare authority that all articles on this site have been so republished.

May God uphold the right. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 08:08, 1 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

I request that Suki or McFly set <tt>$wgRightsText</tt> in LocalSettings.php to be "CC-BY-SA", in accordance with this change. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 08:08, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

=== Did anything happen? ===
The footer says GFDL; the editing page says GFDL; [[Transformers Wiki:Copyrights]] still says GFDL... Did anything get changed at all in time? --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 00:02, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:Also [[Transformers Wiki:General disclaimer]] - that and [[Transformers Wiki:Copyrights]] are easily updatable (Derik?), but only McFly or Suki Brits have access to change the configuration file to correct the other messages. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:18, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:We held a vote and declared the change had taken place. That the admins are slow in making the necessary changes is annoying, but does not change the underlying reality. (Even a storekeeper must be allowed time to repaint his signs.)
:I have refrained from editing the other instances where it says GFDL to make a proper clean transition when our web-bravos get off their asses. Anyone else si free to do it though... we ''have'' transitioned. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:23, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
::Ah, fair enough too! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:05, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
::My apologies for not checking three days ago. ''It is fixed.'' --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 03:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
::''The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.''
::I... guess you could interpret 'republish' that way. To optimism. --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 09:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::It's hard to interpret 'republish' any other way. The provisio specifies that the articles must be republished on the ''same'' site. You're not going to create another copy of every article in another namespace. It's very clearly a case of "republish in place," where 'republish' refers to the ephemeral act of changing the license. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:44, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
::::No, I get that part; I meant interpreting republishing as an abstract decision-making process, instead of as the act of changing the actual, network-transmitted licensing text by a sysop. --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 11:12, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::The sysop could change our licensing text to read "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA-NC." ...but neither of those are legal under the GFDL's relicensing provision. (Neither is "NARF" or "MALP," to name a few more nonsensical examples.) Changing a central data string doesn't affect the individual pages any more than a diffuse declaration (less actually, they only have legal force when a subsequent edit is made.)
:::::The relicensing proviso is vague on implementation. This is how I did it. ''*shrug*'' Seems as valid as any other way, really. And it's certainly true to the spirit of the thing. As always, YMMV. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:15, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing