User:Derik/Sandbox14

{{#if: Epps_inprogress.png | | }} {{ #if: Oh, he's doin' somethin... |Oh, he's doin' somethin... |}} Another editor is doing extensive changes to this article right now, and is requesting that all other editors hold off on any edits until their work is finished, in order to make sure nothing important gets lost. {{ #if: |{{ #if: |  | }} talk page.|}} {{#if: ||}}

{{#ifeq: User||}}{{#ifeq: User|File|}}

		!
mmc-mf!CC-BY-SA3

The licensor provides this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US License Code, or CC-BY-SA3.

The licensor further presents an Opinion Draft concerning the form assumed by CC-BY-SA3 provisions in relation to Massive Multiauthor Collaborations focused on media fandom, hereafter referred to as mmc-mf.

CC-BY-SA3 summary

You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

to Recast — to adapt the work into new forms

Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work consistent with the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or adapt this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Issues with CC-BY-SA3 implementation

Unless otherwise noted the phrase "Creative Commons license" below refers to CC-BY-SA3, and license section identifiers refer to CC-BY-SA3 and GFDL 1.3 versions.

Mutability of terms

The CC-BY-SA3 license recognizes that it is cannot pre-anticipate every situation; and included within itself a process whereby if any provision of the License is invalid or unenforceable, it shall become "re-formed" to the minimum degree necessary to render it valid again without any action on the part of the licensee or licensee. This silent re-forming action makes CC-BY-SA3 an interpellative license; its meaning may change when 'stressed by a work whose nature defies administration by the license as written.

Because The Creative Commons license was not written with MMCs such as Wikis, or media-fandom projects where large volumes of copyrighted "fair use" content is indistinguishably mixed in with CC-BY-SA3 contributions in mind... some terms of the Creative Commons license, including requirements for attribution (sec 4c) and demarcation (sec 3B), are invalid or unenforceable as written. The Licensor therefore holds that the terms of the CC-BY-SA3 license has Become Re-formed to accommodate this. The Licensor further holds that because 'the minimum degree of re-formation necessary to render the provisions valid again may lack a clear-cut solution, the actual terms of the license in have been rendered ambiguous. Like Schrödinger's cat, though we know the the re-formed provisions have assumed a single correct meaning, we have no way to determine what that meaning is.

Absent a clear solution, the Licensor asserts a (nonspecific) good-faith right to issue a non-binding Interpretation of the re-formed license's function in issues where its text does not directly speak.

Licensor Interpretation

Such a non-binding Licencor Interpretation does not modify the license of a work; the CC-BY-SA3 License Code remains the only binding license. A Licensor Interpretation carries no strength but its own utility as a non-binding norm. If the validity of an Interpretation becomes widely accepted by other Licensors, it may be termed a Common Understanding. Tt is impossible for a Interpretation or Common Understanding to "exert pressure" and 'shift' the meaning of an ambiguous provision because the provision actually possesses a singular fixed (albeit obscure) meaning set at the moment it was re-formed.

A work can be ported between two CC-BY-SA3 or comparable projects, even if the projects have different or conflicting interpretations... because a Licensee is under no obligation to accept or even consider a Licensor's interpretation.

(The Licensor takes time to note that the robust provisions of CC-BY-SA3 mean that such a situation would occur only rarely.)

mmc-mf Opinion Draft

	MMC — Massive Multiauthor Collaboration
	Media Fandom —

Content originally licensed prior to GFDL 1.3

In regard to MMCs originally incorporated under GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 (or a previous version) that have been re-licensed as CC-BY-SA3….

Given that GFDL is a rigid license whose provisions are not readily open to re-interpretation, we assert that the the platform used by most MMCs (MediaWiki) does, as a matter of routine, render work re-licensed for incorporation from other GFDL MMCs non-compliant with section 4i. (Licensee noncompliance, not licensor.)

We hold that since 2002, there has been exercised a Common Understanding that MMC content subjected to this non-compliant incorporation is not cause for termination the GFDL license. (Further, while establishing the specific mechanism by which this Common Understanding may operate is not required for the purposes of this argument… we suggest that it is "probably" exerting some silent function in relation to Section 9 paragraph 2 sub-paragraph b.)

We assert that GFDL 1.3’s revisions allowing such MMC’s to "republish" as CC-BY-SA3 without the GFDL are not in conflict with the GFDL forward-compatibility clause (sec 10) stating that future versions of the license "will be similar in spirit." Republishing does not conflict with GFDL’s requirement that that all Modified Versions of a work also be released under "precisely this license" (sec 4, paragraph 1) because a work is not modified in the course of being republished.

Finally, we hold that the revisions in GFDL 1.3 allowing MMC’s to republish themselves outside of the terms and conditions previously allotted by the GFDL represents a good-faith action on the part of the Free Software Foundation’s preserve those terms and conditions, separate from their obvious right to do so.

• Allowing the application of the GFDL’s rigid terms to become subject to radical unwritten re-interpretation as a matter of routine in order to accommodate non-compliant MMCs weakens those terms’ ability to guarantee the absolute rights of all work licensed under the GFDL.
• Altering the terms of the GFDL to allocate special rights for MMCs (which are themselves not generally related to software documentation and have already discarded large portions of the GFDL as inapplicable) would be inconsistent with the GFDL’s provision that all future versions of the license be "similar in spirit," and ill-serve the core base.
• Migrating MMCs which never belonged under a license designed for the free documentation of software to an equivalent license with compatible terms will offer better long-term protection of those rights than they would have under a diluted or ambigious GFDL.

License Interpretation draft

hold weight of precedent (which we asserted)

The Licensor also points out that under normal circumstances, the CC-BY-SA3 is not subject to this sort of interpretation.

---

taken

Pursuant with those provisions, we believe the following licenseor interpretation to apply; (hereafter mmc-mf)

genotype and phenotype

interpretative

understanding

execution

statement

mmc-ccg!CC-BY-SA3

Once mature, this opinion guideline may be considered a Working Draft for a Draft Reccomendation for a future CC-BY-SA3 compatible governing wikis whose primary subject is

Under normal circumstances, the CC-BY-SA3 is not subject to such interpretation.

They transferred it from square peg to square peg... but the second square peg had the ability to deform, so it's already existing in a trapezoidal form without being formally recognized

Unless otherwise specified, section numbers refer to GFDL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA3. The term MMC and Wiki are used interchangeably here.