Template talk:NoMultiLicense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does introducing other licenses, either more or less restrictive, complicate the legal situation of Wikipedia further? --logixoul 13:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it means that parts of Wikipedia are available not just under the GFDL, but also under other licenses. That's more legal complexity of a sort, I suppose. But I don't think it's problematic complexity — if you're confused, you can always fall back on the knowledge that anything and everything on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GFDL (minus the fair use stuff, of course). It's their choice, of course, but I think it's sad that editors would explicitly choose this option, rather than, say, releasing their work under GFDL & SS-BY-SA, which are conceptually similar licenses. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you have just explained why introducing licenses does not complicate the legal situation of Wikipedia. Did I misunderstand your thoughts somehow? Or, otherwise, why does the template say that it does? --logixoul 19:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I do believe that, strictly speaking, it is accurate to say that introducing additional licenses complicates the legal situation somewhat. At the same time, I'd argue that the complication isn't a problem in practice, because you're always guaranteed at least the GFDL for any Wikipedia content. I don't know if the people who display this template would agree with my assessment of the problem, though. — Matt Crypto 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you gave me an idea. I'll ask the person who put the assertion in the template - why didn't I think of that in the first place >_< . Thanks for trying to explain. --logixoul 15:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multi-licensing#The_Case_Against_Multiple_Licenses explains it properly. And remember the ideology behind the GPL; using copyright restriction to protect freedoms. Multilicensing weakens this. Second, Creative Commons itself confuses me. There is no single CC license, there are all kinds of mix-and-match varieties, 1.0, 2.0, 2.5... squell 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, if you want to print out a single article from Wikipedia and distribute it under the terms of the GFDL, you have to also distribute copies of the somewhat verbose license text, as well as list all the contributors to that page. If other licenses allow you to distribute articles without that burden, then I would call that an increase of freedom. — Matt Crypto 16:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand why WikiTravel cares about that. But if you take a look at the CC-BY-SA license, the The legal text is still quite a lengthy document, and it also requires attribution. Personally, I think a BSD-like license is better if the GFDL is considered too 'bulky'. squell 17:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the CC-BY-SA require that you distribute the legal text, like the GFDL? I was under the impression that this was not a requirement. — Matt Crypto 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

BSD licensing is not copyleft. Anyone can take free BSD info and make its non-free, improved versions. Also, bulkiness doesn't matter - what matters is quality. (my discussion page) 12:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think the GFDL is a crappy license, please state so explicitly. squell 22:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I state explicitly that the GFDL has its drawbacks. User:logixoul 13:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The license doesn't require it, no - a URI is enough. However, I'm wary as to how this would stand up in court. Does a URI qualify as a license grant in all circumstances? Also, this construction makes the license incompatible with even the BSD licenses. Of course, IANAL. But I'm not a fan of the CC licenses... squell 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was any doubt about whether Creative Commons licenses would stand up in court, then would thousands of people be using them? (my discussion page) 12:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. What gives CC credibility is Lawrence Lessig, not the number of people using it. squell 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if that's true, you just answered yourself, didn't you? User:logixoul 13:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any of the things I brought up are properly answered by invoking Lessig's name. I've tried to explain why I think the CC licenses unnecessarily complicate Wikipedia's licensing — if you disagree, that's fine with me. squell 19:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO only not invalidated anti-CC assertion you did was "The license doesn't require it, no - a URI is enough. However, I'm wary as to how this would stand up in court. Does a URI qualify as a license grant in all circumstances?". In other words, you say you don't know whether an URI is enough for law. Then, you say something gives CC credibility. CC is credible, that is. So:

squell:Is the URI enough for law?/Is CC credible?

squell:Yes, it is credible./ Yes, the URI is enough for law.

That's why I thought you answered yourself. Anyway, doesn't seem we're getting anywhere with this arguing, so feel free not to reply if you think so too.(I hope I don't sound rude.) --logixoul 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, since we're getting stuck in "for/against CC" which wasn't the original point. squell 23:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

What about this slightly more NPOV version (and also note that licenses can probably be equally restrictive):

I am content with licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe that introducing other licenses, either more, less or equally restrictive, further complicates the legal situation of Wikipedia, so I choose not to do it.

The current version is like, "I'm right and I don't care about what you think." IMHO. --logixoul 10:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In my view, license restrictivity isn't really the issue, but compatibility is. The reasons for not licensing less restrictively (CC-BY, public domain) are probably different than not licensing equally or more restrictive (all other CC licenses). And I think the word 'further' is a bit out of place. What about this slightly terser version?

I am content with licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe that introducing other incompatible licenses complicates the legal situation of Wikipedia, so I choose not to do it.

Somewhat in line with this, and because the previous "anti-cc" image was removed due to copyright problems anyway, I suggest replacing it with this image: [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg|30px]].

Interestingly, CC is considering one-way GFDL compatibility, this would in effect make CC-BY-SA a sort of 'proxy license' for the GFDL. If this succeeds, it would make WP licensing so much more elegant. squell 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version was in my editbox and I was just about to save it, but I decided it'd be too radical a change to get accepted, so I sorta softened it. Anyway, I agree with all of your points, including the icon. I put a request for an update --logixoul 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Done.--logixoul 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another request for alternate text.

I'd rather use the GFDL as I'm a free software advocate also.

Makes no sense: the GFDL and the (L)GPL are completely separate licenses and there's no reason for relating them solely on the base of a G (GNU). In other words, we ought to compare licenses per quality, not per who created them. Did you know that the CC people were perfectly aware of the existence of the GFDL and created CC to be a better alternative, because the GFDL has some drawbacks? BTW, I'm a free software advocate, too. And a GPL one. --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The normal way of development is CC people should have worked to the FSF to fix the GFDL. Maybe they just don't see eye to eye on freedom though.Jeff Carr 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They tried. FSF said they'd fix the GFDL and didn't. --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The FSF's stance is the CC licenses are not good at all FSF licenses page Jeff Carr 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They say two things:

• incompatible with GPL and FDL - irrelevant to license quality
• vagueness - say "cc-by-sa" instead of following the incredibly stupid practice of saying "Creative Commons license" and you're done.

This of course is just my POV --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

However, I'd rather have text more like "I am licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe in the philosophy behind the license and support other similar licenses by the FSF." Or something more along those lines. Jeff Carr 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(L)GPL shouldn't be messed with this - it's something different and there's no point talking about your software license preferences in an encyclopedia license tag. Otherwise, how about "I am licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I'm heterosexual and my interests include, but are not limited to: scuba diving, ancient Bulgarian culture, ednet. keyboards, South Park and analytic mathematics."? I don't think this is such a good idea. --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I dislike the CC or Lessig or want to compare them, they just seem like a distraction when there is already the GFDL, GPL, etc. Jeff Carr 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat word you used, "seem like a distraction". Leave the GPL aside. There's already GFDL, but, to put it simply, many people consider it to be buggy and want alternatives. It's like saying that FreeBSD seems like a distraction when we already have Linux. --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess many people consider the CC license to be buggy. There isn't consenses here. Jeff Carr 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. But by your logic CC proponents ought to say that the GFDL seems like a distraction, too. --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, just a request for a "NoMultiLicense_alt_text2" or something like that if it's possible. Jeff Carr 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following. Let's have two templates of this kind: the current one can be called "GFDL simplicity" and another one, "GFDL philosophy" can be created. The latter could say "I am content with licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe in the philosophy behind this license.". Comments? --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be excellent; all I was hoping for. Jeff Carr 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But not what squell was hoping for. --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen bad things happen with dual GPL/BSD licenses because companies can take the sources and use them in closed source proprietary products and not release the changes. Then they compete against the authors that wrote the code in the first place. Jeff Carr 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the BSD license have to do with what we're talking about? Besides, if someone is dumb enough to decides to license their code under the BSD license, then they're obviously aware of the implications and therefore they agree with people using their code against them. When somebody does something to you that you have given permission for, by definition it isn't bad. --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't explain my intent well: to put some text in the box that new users might read and unmistakably see something about the "principle of freedom". Jeff Carr 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You explained it perfectly well and then started talking about something irrelevant IMHO. Nevermind. --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the equivalent would be (or if there is one) with text on the Wikipedia, but I'd rather not find out either. Jeff Carr 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many equivalents - licensing under BSD, CC-BY, etc., dedicating to the public domain, etc. That still fits my suggestion above. --logixoul 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of having a template for everybody-and-their-pet's license, there's always the option to subst this template into your userpage, and then replace the text with whatever you prefer. I think having two GFDL-only templates would be a bit silly.

Also, the philosophy behind CC-BY-SA (not the other CC licenses) and GFDL is pretty identical, the difference is mostly technical — which is exactly why it's A Bad Thing(tm) that the licenses are not compatible. squell 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are quasiright. Let's put this: "I license my contributions only under the GFDL. {{{reason}}}". Then everybody should be happy, right? --logixoul 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted?

What's going on here? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted yesterday by Grue under a speedy deletion criterion that it was "divisive". I don't agree (and I'm someone who is a very much in favour of multi-licensing). — Matt Crypto 08:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted Grue requesting undeletion and submitting this template to normal deletion review. — squell 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You can submit it to Deletion Review yourself. The template was divisive and contained a veiled legal threat to boot (I'm referring to "complicating the legal situation of Wikipedia"). With recent deletions of harmless templates such as "This user is a Christian", I think this template is a no-brainer T1.  Grue  21:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first step of Deletion Review with speedies is to ask the admin to restore the page; it's a pity you'd want to force people to go through "process" when apparently several people do not think of this as a no-brainer. If you read this talk page you'd notice that the version deleted was the result of consensus by diametrically opposite points of view on the issue of multilicensing. The last thing Wikipedia needs is admins single-handedly overthrowing such results because they see "veiled legal threats" somewhere. In my opinion, you should have submitted it to regular TfD. squell 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I've restored the history of the template and replaced it with a non-divisive version. In my opinion, CSD T1 does not mean that if part of a template is divisive, and another part is not divisive, then the whole template needs to be deleted. Or expressed another way, if the template can be reworded as much as necessary to make it no longer divisive, while still retaining its original purpose, there is no reason why it should be deleted.

The template now provides for a parameter "reason", which allows individual users to express their own reason why they are content to single licence. --bainer (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that feels so Refreshing. Thanks. --logixoul 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)