Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license
diff.wikimedia.org
diff.wikimedia.org
It worked though
to elaborate… wikipedia used to be GNU Free Document License, which is a terrible license. But there was no way to easily migrate to CC, as you would need to contact all the authors and get agreement.
So FSF used the “or later” clause to make a new version of FDL that said “these few months, wikis can migrate from this license to CC”. The new version of the license was made just for wikipedia, just so they could migrate to CC.
Here, part “relicensing”
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
edit also see
On one hand it’s changing a license to do something else than intended, and the “you can switch but only in the year 2008” is kind of weird
On the other hand… eh, wikipedia is better for it, and I doubt people really wanted to contribute under the horrible document license
Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous to comply with[0]. It's incompatible with literally any other license on the planet as well (it's not a "proper" Free Software License because of crap like invariant sections, which just exists to force the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the GNU projects documentation). There's also such charming issues like "the anti-DRM clause is worded in such a way that you can't store a GFDL file on an encrypted filesystem". It's a really really bad license and a serious competitor for the worst license ever written by the GNU project (even the AGPL isn't this bad).
Wikipedia changed it because they kept having to deal with people who pointed out that anyone reproducing Wikipedia content could technically violate it's license, an obviously-on-the-nose issue.
The worst part? The GNU/FSF still recommends the fucking GFDL on its website[1] for documentation even though they offered a carveout for the WMF.
It's hard to understate just how bad the GDFL is.
[0]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html...
The AGPL is basically a EULA disguised as a license. It tries to solve the network problem (aka SaaSification, a practice I would argue is against the spirit but very much permissible by the Four Freedoms) in a very "lawyeristic" way. If you don't modify AGPL software, you're not under any obligation to comply with the AGPL in any form. But the moment you touch the code, you now need to make the source available.
This also means it is (theoretically) trivially easy to work around - just contract out your modifications, have the contractor keep the copyright and act as the only user of the software with an indefinite license. You don't have to distribute a thing since you didn't modify the source code, your contractor did.
Going on from that, the AGPL doesn't actually say how compliance with section 13 must be achieved. According to most lawyers I've heard (not that I am one to be clear), basically your only "safe" option for most network apps is to make your code a quine (a program that can reproduce its own source code, most software isn't this, especially not network software) or something like JavaScript that is fully interpreted clientside anyway. Something like a link to a GitHub repository is not compliant with the AGPL.
This specific property also tends to cause major issues when confronted with protocols that don't easily allow for transferring large amounts of text. ie. MIDI is technically a network protocol.
All of those issues come from the fact that what the AGPL wants to do fundamentally conflicts with both freedom 0 (right to run software however you wish) and a more informal FSF stance that EULAs are bad.
It's just a bad license in terms of how it's understood and the text itself is of dubious quality due to how clearly it's written by a lawyer who got asked to say X without saying X.
Also, or-later is generally a bad clause for any license, since it hands over all licensing grants to whatever entity you trusted to write the license in the first place, so unless you wrote it yourself, that's not a good idea.
The problem that AGPL tries to fix is quite tricky though, since AFAIK you can do whatever you want with GPL code, unless you want to publish anything. And SaaS is not technically publishing the code but only its behaviour (even though for all intents and purposes this is the same as an obfuscated binary, especially in places where deobfuscation is illegal).
Which free/open source licences do you think would be better for the specific purpose of preventing SaaSification while actually being usable/useful in real life?
The fact that all of those options (EULAs, explosive patent grants, strict trademark enforcement) additionally sound so antithetical to free/open source licenses does seem to directly reflect that "Software Freedom 0" paradox that preventing SaaSification tells users how they can't use the software, which is the very opposite of a modern software freedom. (The FSF probably made a massive mistake in accepting the AGPL as anything more than GPL fan fiction, because it does seem to reflect that they don't trust their own software freedoms and will accept some unfortunate compromises on them.)
I don't know if there is an easy answer for how you build free/open source software and prevent SaaSification without also terribly compromising some of the core virtues of what free/open source software was meant to uphold in the first place.
> it is (theoretically) trivially easy to work around - just contract out your modifications, have the contractor keep the copyright and act as the only user of the software with an indefinite license
Would this not require the contractor to comply with section 13? At this point, you would be paying the contractor for ensuring legal compliance instead of doing this yourself, which is something that companies sometimes do anyway.
> AGPL doesn't actually say how compliance with section 13 must be achieved... MIDI is technically a network protocol
MIDI is indeed a network protocol, but I wouldn't read section 13 as requiring that the network used for the offer of source code or the source code itself is the only network used by the software. If you had a remote MIDI sequencer that users could connect their musical instrument to, it would almost certainly have something like a Web interface as well (MIDI isn't by itself an internet protocol, which I'm sure you already know) where the source code could be offered.
Ambiguities inherent to the diversity of software don't negate the general legal principle of good faith. Posting a link to a repository on GitHub with your modifications is usually sufficient for compliance, and edge cases like where GitHub is down or blocked for your user can be resolved with good-faith email correspondence. Given how much fuzziness there is in law, I don't think it would help much to be more prescriptive in say, requiring the offer to be made over HTTP.
> or-later is generally a bad clause for any license, since it hands over all licensing grants to whatever entity you trusted to write the license
This is true, but I consider it to be the lesser of two evils. The evil that or-later avoids is that of licence incompatibilities and ambiguities, which are frequently complicated by a difficulty in tracing the authorship of older software. Those programs which were licensed with an or-later clause can typically be 'rescued' by a new revision published by the licence steward, similar to how the FSF carved out an exception to the GFDL for Wikimedia as discussed elsewhere in this thread. The evil that or-later causes, that the licence steward makes a compromising change, is quite limited: since they can't restrict rights beyond the older licence, the worst-case scenario is that they go against the spirit of copyleft and make it a fully permissible licence, which is still 100% FOSS and in practice the FSF are not going to do any time soon.
Again, thanks for going into depth. I agree that there are improvements to be made, and I certainly wouldn't consider the AGPL-3.0-or-later to be the 'be all and end all' of FOSS licensing, but I'm not yet convinced it's a bad choice! :)
Not at all. There are tons of MIDI devices which communicate over MIDI, and which don't have another network interface. Most electronic keyboards fall into this category, for example.
> MIDI isn't by itself an internet protocol, which I'm sure you already know
AGPL doesn't care. MIDI is a network protocol; whether it's bridged to the general Internet is irrelevant to the license.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
First of all, it says "your version" has to offer users the ability to download the source. Clearly, a sticker with a URL next to the midi jack would comply. However, it only applies to remote users, so your example is already limited to the corner case where they are connecting to a remote midi device through a network port that doesn't have a UI.
Even then, the license says "if your version supports such interaction" which could be construed to be referring to the phrase that follows the disclaimer instead of the one that precedes it.
Even if you read all of those things in the "you have to serve source code over the network that serves the remote midi protocol" way, the clause "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software" clearly implies that you could (say) offer it over port 443 on some server you run, or via a github link.
In fact, that clause pretty clearly means that only distributing it through some obscure MIDI extension would not put you in compliance with the license.
This is hardly even the craziest thing about the GFDL, but it's one of the most obviously problematic for a wiki.
> K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", [anyone copying a modified version of the document must] Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
Eh, wouldn't that be fair use use anyway?
A quick skimming suggests that it does not require that. In fact, it only talks about distribution of content, not linking:
Does this put other licences at risk? What if someone releases something under a licence, and there is a new version that is less or more permissive, allowing the original author's intention to 'vetoed'?
In collaboration with the organisation behind GFDL, they used that clause to re-license everything under CC.
I think doing something like this is not somethings that should be taken lightly. you are risking the only asset the contract has: trust.
On the other hand: It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause.
Definitely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-...
If you have “GPLv2 or later”, FSF is then overtaken by Microsoft and makes “GPLv4 is allowing Microsoft to use your code in Windows” then it’s what it is, your code can now be used by Microsoft
I'm sure in some cases the writer thinks they'll get in trouble with the boss if they aren't sufficiently unctuous but it's annoying to read again and again.
Perhaps there is an opportunity here to establish an "Announcement Excitement Scale" from 1 to 10 where 10 is - say - ChatGPT or the iPhone and 1 is a license change.
This can be printed with the announcement of being excited, then the reader can easily judge for themselves whether to peruse further.
Taking this out of context really puts the spotlight of the weirdness of this type of copy.
Me: Write a press release stating that Wikipedia is announcing the update to our license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
ChatGPT: […] Wikipedia, the world's largest online encyclopedia, is thrilled to announce a significant update to its licensing terms. Effective immediately, Wikipedia will adopt the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. This change represents Wikipedia's ongoing commitment to open knowledge and collaboration. […]
Just let people have fun with things.
A better question is why everyone has to be so negative.
From my British view, without reference to a dictionary, awesome is when you hear fighter jets zoom overhead, or a metal band from in front of the stage, or Niagara Falls, or a mile-long freight train full of rocks shaking the ground as it passes. The target has strength, size and power.
An amazing thing is far beyond normal expectations in art, craft, or human behaviour. A detailed painting, where you step up closer and see it's even more detailed than you first thought. A carving from 3000 years ago with intricacy we didn't think possible at that time.
Something exciting causes strong, (mostly) positive emotions. A roller coaster ride, an impromptu water fight in the summer, stripping off clothes and running into the sea in a group, getting close to the end of a game with the realization that you might win.
Starting a job at Google and seeing 50 exabytes of data or a cluster of 10 million computers or whatever could be awesome.
Someone's clever and efficient algorithm that reduces runtime by 10× could be amazing.
Finishing the final university exam, expecting to pass the degree, could be exciting.
Changing from licence version 3 to licence version 4 is none of these. It might be satisfying, or perhaps rewarding for the people directly involved.
who are you to say how someone else should feel?
It’s like someone not familiar with coding saying why should software engineers feel excited for releasing something? It’s literally just text you typed. Wow, boring.
Your other examples are literally just your opinion, which is fine. Understand others do not feel the same way necessarily.
The British equivalents being "not too bad", "bloody" or "oh".
Local government officials, BBC Radio 4 presenters and the nobility often sell or donate their ration to youth workers and minor celebrities.
I saw a vulture outside yesterday. I thought that was pretty amazing! I’d never seen one before.
I was pretty excited yesterday to run after a rabbit in my yard like a five year old as my kids yelled “dad no don’t eat it!”
But even as an American with my strange irrational exuberance and positive language creep, I can agree with you that changing from version 3 to 4 of a license is none of these things.
To me all of these things sound very lame. I find the Wikipedia licensing change more interesting. I think the post did a good job explaining why this matters and what this changes for Wikipedia.
Roller coaster ride? That's not exciting; that's frightening! I can kind of understand 'getting close to the end of a game with the realization that you might win', but this is more frequently nerve-racking for me.
It's not exclusively an Americanism to be excited about law.
> nerve racking
I’m a Californian and I don’t think something is exciting unless it’s somewhat frightening. That is to say Adrenaline is involved in excitement. Otherwise it is just fun, interesting, or cool.
there are two aspects of American usage in play, just want to clarify. One is that Americans simply are more optimistic in the way that de Tocqueville noticed 200 years ago. Then layered on top of that are regional American differences where people in the northeast are optimistic but speak in a grumpier way ya fackin bastid, people in the middle are, okadiddlydokily, friendlier how they win friends and influence people, and people on the west coast really lay the positivity on thick, double rainbow all the way.
Dear Hacker News community,
I am thrilled to share some exciting news with all of you. After much delay, I proudly announce that I have taken the initiative to call not just one, but two separate repair services. One is to address the issue with my recently broken water heater, while the other is to finally fix the blinds that have been broken for over 18 months.
I'm sure many of you can relate to the frustration of dealing with household repairs that seem to linger indefinitely. Well, I have taken the proactive step of reaching out to professionals, and I am hopeful that these long-standing problems will soon be resolved.
Firstly, I have connected with a reputable repair service for the water heater. This essential home appliance will soon be restored to its full functionality, providing the comfort and convenience it once did.
Additionally, I have engaged with another repair service to tackle the issue with my broken blinds. These blinds, which have been a persistent eyesore for far too long, will finally be repaired, allowing me to control the amount of light entering my home and restoring a sense of privacy.
I wanted to share this news with the community because it signifies a small but meaningful personal achievement. It's a reminder that sometimes the smallest victories, like making those long-overdue repair calls, can bring a sense of satisfaction and relief.
Thank you for allowing me to share this update with you.
Best regards, MordisquitosAnd no, the better question is why everyone has to be pretentious?!
Completing the work is an everyday kind of thing by the way, not some sort of exceptional or rare achievement but common occurrence (if we are optimistic). : )
But yeah, here, it is just a technical update that may be exciting only to specialized lawyers. But we are on a website where we get excited by some tool we never heard about before being rewritten in Rust, so...
They are corporations.
They both provide little value to the communication and are mostly just a language quirk.
Ergo, a very hum-drum announcment gets this.
(Yes, American company).
A while back stackoverflow went to CC-BY-SA 4.0, and bunch of people got into a snit about it: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchan...
No one could ever explain what the actual problem was that they had with the change. They admitted there wasn't any practical difference but still were red-hot angry about it. Some people are weird about licenses.
Wikimedia got it right by putting "3.0 or later" in their terms of use (TOU). This allowed them to _legally_ claim all old contributions are available under 4.0. They're still also available under 3.0, but that's a minor detail.
Basically, people aren’t necessarily upset about them relicensing, but that there’s been no discussions with the community about these things. This was just another nail in the wound, and people got upset.
Also, it clarifies that linking to a webpage with attribution information is allowable. It also enables people to fix attribution mistakes within a reasonable time, which is important to help address simple mistakes without the need for overly aggressive copyright enforcement demands.
This comment is based on the "Stepping into the future: Wikimedia projects’ transition to Creative Commons’ 4.0 license" article from 29 June 2023 by Stephen LaPorte, Jacob Rogers and Shaun Spalding [0], and may be shared and modified, with attribution, under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
See also: https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-...
I was reading of an exploit where an organisation is publishing photos under the 3.0 licence, searching for minor infractions and then extorting random bloggers and businesses for infringement. I believe the 4.0 licence addresses this by allowing users to fix a faulty attribution within a reasonable time.
The one that's usually preferred is version 2.0, which has some fairly specific attribution requirements that are easy to mess up.
The practical effects are a function of the magnitude of the change and the scale at which it applies.
In the case of Wikipedia the scale is vast in terms of social impact and so the effect is large even for a small change...in a the-universe-includes-a-lot-of-corner-cases sort of way.
So many human workyears poured into licences, and still even the most basic things are total moronic.
edit: actually I have no idea why does the CC licence contain that part? Any ideas?
[0] : "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license," - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
"You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. "
The license applies when you are reproducing the work or making derivative works. So if you were to fork or mirror Wikipedia in its entirety or even publish a book of curated Wikipedia articles, you would need to give appropriate credit and link to the license.
From [0]:
> 7(h): Modifications or additions to material that you reuse: When modifying or making additions to text that you have obtained from a Project Website, you agree to license the modified or added content under CC BY-SA 4.0 or later (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the specific Project edition or feature).
> ...
The previous version[1] said the same, but called out CC BY-SA 3.0 or later:
> 7(h): Modifications or additions to material that you re-use: When modifying or making additions to text that you have obtained from a Project website, you agree to license the modified or added content under CC BY-SA 3.0 or later (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the specific Project edition or feature).
> ...
[0]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use
[1]: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Te...
See Jimmy Wales answer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpof5J6jjZ4&t=3738s
The solution adopted was to include a waiver in the Wikimedia Terms of Use:
Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution.
That has to be sufficient. No way is anyone expected to credit the possibly thousands of pseudonyms, IP addresses, and automated bots that have ever touched an article.
What if in 20 years time the link no longer works and I'm still distributing the content? Then I'll update the link, or link to the web archive. If for some reason neither of these is possible, it might even be reasonable to attribute more generally 'unknown wikipedia contributors, formerly documented at [old url]'.
Welcome to the German Wikipedia where stuff gets deleted quicker than you can look up what a Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänspatent even is.
> With version 4.0, it is easier for reusers to understand how to credit the original author of the work. For example, it clarifies that linking to a webpage with attribution information is allowable, which is helpful since doing so has already become a common method of providing attribution.
I believe that was standard practice already, hence the use of the term "clarifies," but now it should be spelled out in the license.
"Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution."
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use
This is of course to make it easer for commercial re-users to not attribute and share alike.
The change in database rights were one of the key reasons why the move to 4.0 was delayed for so long. Without the waiver, it would have put a legal question mark over the data pipeline leading from Wikipedia to Wikidata and thence to Google et al.
See Jimmy Wales answer here:
"Oh, well, the Wikimedia Foundation has gone ahead and updated our license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, you know, one of the bloody changes in our recent Terms of Use update, which brings the Wikimedia projects up to the latest version of the Creative Commons licenses. Not too shabby, really, and quite in line with the latest Creative Commons stuff, I reckon."