Comments on: Wikipedia + CC BY-SA = Free Culture Win!

By: TallyMike53

TallyMike53 — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:55:12 +0000

If more people shared and less complained, there would be less liars, cheaters, thieves, and more happiness. 🙂

By: Tellaf Rend

Tellaf Rend — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:10:51 +0000

I think Mr. Gregory Kohs has never gotten an answer I would consider satisfactory. I was also unsatisfied and amazed that Wikipedia would attempt such a thing; until I found out that the FSF had changed license terms of the GFDL to permit Wikipedia to also license under the CC license.

See the first FAQ
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html

I still wonder why CC would advertise that the GFDL is ‘insane’.

By: Mike Linksvayer

Mike Linksvayer — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:17:33 +0000

Gendel,

Wikipedia has never been in the public domain. It is FREE in terms of the most relevant definition, see http://freedomdefined.org

Hopefully the license transition was both a good thing to do in the first place and the start of much bigger things. That’s what this post is about, starting from the title!

By: Gendel

Gendel — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:44:23 +0000

Will CC By-SA alter Wikipedia’s public domain status? Will it still be a FREE Encyclopedia?
Is the conversion is the good thing to do in the first place, or it’s just a start of something bigger, something to do with money?
None of above comments seemed to concern these. So you please answer.

By: Mike Linksvayer

Mike Linksvayer — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:11:18 +0000

Mirzhan,

Leadership != authoritarian regime, nor is a community with leaders a herd of lambs.

Many free/open projects are well served by a so-called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life — but not really dictators due to the right to exit (fork).

Wales’ role seems considerably less privileged than those called BFDLs, see link above and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales

By: Mirzhan Irkegulov

Mirzhan Irkegulov — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:34:22 +0000

>Hooray for Jimmy Wales
>CC is fortunate to also have Wales as a member of our board of directors
>Without his vision

So Mike Linksvayer says wikipedians are lambs with Wales as shepherd? Wikipedia goes where daddy points? When did i missed the moment of “free encyclopedia” becoming authoritarian regime?

By: muriem

muriem — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:54:20 +0000

Mike Linksvayer thank you for the enlighting links, I skimmed through tat topics.

So to conclude, yes attribution is kind of stupid for a free project. However it was needed, as this was the only CC to be compatible with FDL.

So I agree, if anyone wants to make a new grounds up project similar to wikipedia, s/he would be really adviced not to do attribution. However Wikipedia can no longer get out of it, since they are forced into the license (and compatibles) they picked from start.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:31:29 +0000

Won’t this move make the content on Wikipedia not unique anymore? The reason for Wikipedia’s success is its unique content and simple wording.

By: Mike Linksvayer

Mike Linksvayer — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:53:21 +0000

Muriem, re why attribution and how the migration was enabled, see my comments on an earlier post

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13967#comment-199137

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13967#comment-199912

By: muriem

muriem — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:39:32 +0000

Other question, how can they even convert the work they got from all their editors under a GFDL license? I doubt that GFDL is that open you can just drop it for work you received under the GFDL and replace it with an other license.