Geohashing talk:Copyrights

From Geohashing
Revision as of 16:05, 14 February 2022 by Arlo (talk | contribs) (template?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Proposal to switch to CC BY-SA

In 2018, Wikimedia Commons decided to no longer accept new content licensed under the GFDL. Currently, content on the Geohashing Wiki is licensed under the GFDL. In order to allow for media from this wiki to be transferred to Commons in the future, I'd like to propose to license new content here under CC BY-SA 4.0. If you are not familiar with the license, you can read about it here. What are your thoughts? --Fippe (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, the main difference between these two licenses is that if the content is shared, it had to be accompanied by the full text of the license, but with CC it does not, right? Other things like being able to adapt, sharing-alike and attribution remain the same, don't they? If that's the case, I agree with this change. It seems convenient. --SastRe.O (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is the main difference. You are right, CC-BY-SA-licensed work may be adapted and needs to be attributed and shared alike. --Fippe (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about license migration, but I'd support this. Arlo (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I support this suggestion too. --Benoît (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
As a long time supporter of open data and Creative Commons, I have to say...I don't understand this. What's the rationale for having content here be open-licensed anyway? What are the use cases for reusing people's geohashing stories or photos in other contexts? Stevage (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, one answer -- or non-answer depending on how you look at it -- is that this wiki is already licensed freely (and copyleft to boot), it's just that the proposed CC license is better known and more easily integrable than the GFDL these days. As to why the wiki was initially licensed freely, well...perhaps it was the style at the time? Or perhaps Randall et alia wanted to be able to pull in content from Wikipedia directly (which had not yet made a license migration of it's own) with minimal fuss. In any case, there's no moving the existing content to a more or less restrictive license since it's irrevocable, and even if it were revocable that responsibility would lie on the shoulders of those various and sundry wikigoers who originally contributed it, most now lost to the winds. However, as discussed above, equivalent licenses are a different matter. You asked about reuse; it so happens that I've reused content from this wiki to illustrate wikipedia:en:phonebooth stuffing and wikipedia:commons:category:Kharkiv TEC-5. Others may have their own intentions for reuse. This is a natural consequence of the free license and of people interacting with the world beyond themselves. Hashers' destinations may only matter to us weirdoes in the sport but the journeys and those things sighted on them can be pretty interesting generally. Should people be obligated to release their geohashing-related media under such permissive licenses just to hash? Well, aside from resorting to Ninja Geohasherdom or posting text here but media elsewhere, an option might be to have each page require a separate statement of license with full-copyright assumed, which would make things more flexible in that regard but much more complicated in others, and again it would only apply to content after such a change. Arlo (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Since there was some discussion about iNaturalist at talk:birds of a feather geohash achievement, I think it could serve as example of how the CC licenses have achieved currency in a way the GFDL hasn't: iNat supports releasing observations and media thereof under CC0 v1; CC-By, -By-NC, -By-SA, -By-ND, -By-NC-SA, or -By-NC-ND, all v4; or full copyright. Arlo (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right that we can leave aside the question of changing the licence of existing content. But going forward, honestly my preference would be to remove the open licensing altogether. If indivduals want to open-license some or all of their content, they can easily do that. (I sometimes upload my photos to Wikimedia Commons). I wouldn't particularly want someone uploading images of me here to Wikipedia under the assumption that it's open licensed so ok.
TL;DR: IMHO the move to CC-BY-SA is the wrong direction. Stevage (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
After some consideration, I agree. The doing is in the details of course, but if we can implement this, I think that would be the best way to go. We should still agree on a common license for achievement and help pages, however. Arlo (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Open licensing made this wiki possible. Without it, Dan would be comitting copyright infringement for hosting all this and we would still be in the Dark Ages. I don't want to consult a lawyer each time before editing someone else's page. Abolishing open licensing here or restricting it to certain pages would be a dangerous step and I strongly disagree.
At the same time, it seems that there is no consensus to switch to a CC license, which I can accept. --Fippe (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

[dedenting] Another possibility is having a personality rights disclaimer template available to put on file pages, like Wikimedia Commons has. This would encourage consulting the depicted person(s) before reuploading, even if there is no legal mechanism to require such. Arlo (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)