User:Anthony/questions

Hi. Due to the concerns of a number of people, we are considering adopting a new system to replace First Past the Post. What is your preference? Please respond to WikiElections AT aol DOT com. This is not an assurance that the system will be changed, but rather an attempt to gauge the will of the electorate. Danny 03:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

License compatibility issues

As you're probably aware, one of the issues the project has is the wide variation in what can and can't be used under copyright law in different jurisdictions and the differing definitions of free used by contributors to the project. How will you seek to resolve the inevitable tension between those who want a completely free to use public domain Wikipedia, those who want to make full use of all works they are free to use under the copyright law of their jurisdiction, those who want a GFDL only encyclopedia, those who want a copyleft encyclopedia and those who want the best possible encyclopedia and accept all content which doesn't infringe copyright, even if some of it might be hard for all reusers, or a small number of reusers? The most compatible license is public domain, so does that mean that you prefer public domain content over other content? Would you want to strongly favor public domain content to maximise the freedom to reuse the work? How do you believe that increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project? How do you believe it will increase or decrease the chance of a competing project to fill any gaps in what we accept? Jamesday 06:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation was organized "to create and freely distribute a free encyclopedia in all languages of the world." This is further clarified in the bylaws, which state that the foundation "is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org." While one could argue that this purpose coincides with the goal of creating "the best possible encyclopedia", the latter goal leaves much more room for interpretation. (1) To help resolve the tensions over the different definitions of "free" and "open content", I will suggest that a committee be formed, consisting of board members and non-board members, to further clarify what this project means by those words, similar in spirit to GNU's definition at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. The definition should be created with input from all members, and ratified by the board.

I think it will become clear from our definitions that copyleft is the best mechanism to distribute free content which encourages the creation of more free content. Yes, the most compatible "license" is public domain, and therefore we should encourage contributions to be given to us in that form (2), but for distribution a copyleft is preferable.

I don't think generalizations can be made over whether or not "increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project". In any case, project participation is secondary to project integrity. The project was formed for a specific purpose. Others who wish to "fill the gaps" can do so without the benefits of our funding dollars. In fact, I would encourage them to do so. If citizens of country X wish to form a project which uses our content and adds on X-specific content to it, they should be encouraged to do so. It's unclear to me if that's what you meant by a "competing project", since the goals of such a project would be completely different from ours.

(1) For example, while one might argue whether or not Brittanica is "the best possible encyclopedia", it certainly isn't "a free encyclopedia" or an "open content encyclopedia".

(2) Actually, an even better form of contribution would be either copyright assignment or some sort of license to relicense content. I would suggest that mechanisms be put into place to accept (and maybe encourage, but not require) such contributions, but first the relicensing issues need to be clarified. Certainly any content used in Wikipedia for which the foundation owned the copyright would have to be released under at least the GFDL, for instance, and any secondary licenses should be created solely with regard to the freedom of the content (requiring links back is unacceptable).

anthony 11:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. What do you think should be done with fair use materials in the project today, given that the broad fair use right is a largely US phenomenon not available to reusers elsewhere in the world? Considering the number and nature of fair use works contributed to date, what percentage of conrtibutors do you believe agree with your view? If their view is contrary to the goals of the project, should the goals change to include those contributors or should the contributors be forced to contribute elsewhere? What effect do you think a copyright assignment would have on the freedom (as in speech) of the project? When replying please consider that:

• under US law an author can revoke a copyright assignment during a period around 35 years after it was made.
• if the Wikimedia Foundation receives an adverse legal judgment it may be required to transfer all or some of the rights it holds as part of that judgment. Jamesday 17:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to state that this is my personal opinion, and not something that I feel should be implemented at the board level. With that out of the way, the first thing I think we should do is find out just what the law is with regard to fair use in other countries. Is it possible for a US citizen to successfully sue someone (presumably a non-US citizen) for use of copyrighted material in another country which would be fair use under US law? If not, then what I think should be done is quite simple. Material copyrighted by US citizens which is used in a manner which is extremely likely to be fair use for any reuser (assuming the article is kept as is) should be kept. Anything less than that (such as material for which we are relying on our status as a non-profit organization) should be deleted. I should note that on this point I presumably have the agreement of Jimmy Wales, who has stated in an email to me, among other things, that he is "of the opinion that most, possibly even almost all, of the fair use images that we have in Wikipedia should be removed."

If it is possible for a US citizen to successfully sue someone for redistributing Wikipedia (1), then I think we should delete that content which relies on fair use. While I think there is room for debate over how much modification must be allowed to call a work free, I don't think you can consider a work which is only redistributable by a small portion of the world free. The purpose of the Foundation is to create and distribute free content, and mixing non-free content in with that free content in my opinion not only fails to contribute to that goal but actually hinders it, both by making distribution more difficult and by lessening the incentives for creation of free content which is filled by the non-free content.

I'm not sure what percentage of people would agree with me on either of those points, but I'll finish that paragraph from Jimbo's email: "But I've been unable to persuade most people on this point [most fair use images should be removed], and it's not like me to just overrule the community on something that I do think is somewhat optional [in that it is not required by the GFDL]." Now here I'm perhaps a bit more stubborn, but I don't propose that the board just go in and start deleting files either. I'm actually hopeful that people can be persuaded on this point, especially if it comes down to a case where someone setting up a mirror in a foreign country would be breaking the law. I'm also hopeful that it's not going to come to that, and that the answer to my question on foreign law is that fair use can apply.

Perhaps, if all else fails, it will be possible to form a separate entity to separate the funding of any US-specific project. I guess this could be seen as forcing contributors to contribute elsewhere, but it really isn't. Any fair use content which is contributed to the worldwide project could be transferred to the US project before being deleted, and any free content which is contributed to the US project could be shared with the worldwide project. I'm confident that some sort of compromise can be made.

Finally, you asked about how copyright assignment would affect the freedom of the project. The revocation of copyright assignment throws a monkey-wrench into things, and I haven't had time to look at the details of the law in this respect. One question I would have is whether or not licenses granted by the assignee are valid after the revocation. If not, then the only real benefit from copyright assignment is the right to sue. That alone wouldn't really affect the freedom of the project, if properly implemented, but it would most likely encourage reusers to create new free content. In any case, I think there are other problems that we need to solve before looking into copyright assignment. Right now it is essentially impossible for a reuser to properly follow the GFDL, and so we shouldn't be suing anyone (the alternative of suing everyone or suing people selectively are in my opinion incompatible with running a free project). So those issues should be resolved first.

(1) For the sake of simplicity let's consider just Wikipedia.