Talk:Licensing update

Archives
2009 |

Link to the CC legal code

The current version contains a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 unported. I assumed the license to be migrated into would be CC BY-SA 3.0 US, which was mentioned in the Foundation's resolution foundation:Resolution:License_update.

Sorry if I missed any discussion on this, but unported license is more of a prototype to work on than a finished license, so I thought it might be better to choose US or let each local wikis chose the easiest jurisdiction-specific license for them to deal with.

Tomos 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NO! There should be one global license. Yet ANOTHER reason this is a terrible idea! -24.98.65.137 11:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. 24.98.65.137, when you find an all-in-one, global, free license that would serve the best interest of the Wikimedia project, please tell us. The way I see it, the GFDL isn't providing enough for us, so the CC-by-sa license is needed as well (just my opinion). --Michaeldsuarez 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of CC licenses

It might be stating the obvious, but many CC licenses include the provision that unless agreed mutually in writing, the license is the whole of the agreement. No interpretation or understanding about the license exit.

See, for example, 8.d. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported [1] or 8.e. of CC-BY-SA 3.0 US [2]

So there is a chance, I suppose, that provision on how to properly attribute might turn out to be wrong as an interpretation of the CC license.

I do see that having some guideline would be helpful for downstream users, but we (including the Foundation) certainly do not want to give false impression that certain attritbution practice complies with the license where such certaintly does not exist. Tomos 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have certainty in our interpretation. Considering that wikis are a very unique class of intellectual property, however, it seems pertinent that we offer at least some basic guidance on how we think these licenses actually apply to our content. This is not a new practice for Wikipedia. We have plenty of guidance on how to interpret the GFDL, fair use, and other legal concepts for which we are not considered an actual authority. Kaldari 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, further analysis is necessary before leaping! -24.98.65.137 11:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

When we Vote & my views

when we vote this?

I think that double licensing leaves out many contents licensed under GFDL that might be added to Wikisource, a double licensing is good idea for Wikipedia, but a projects like Wikisource not. Other example, Wikinews, is currently not GFDL, so i have a question,

Is double Licensed good Idea for all projects? I think that might do exceptions for imported contents in some projects like Wikisource: if the content to import is GFDL, could clarify that is not licensed doubly. After all, in Wikisource all the content is imported, for example a something in the public domain can not be licensed under GFDL or CC.

For other side, in Wikinews in spanish we import from a Newspaper with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/es/ , question: this licence remain compatible? If not, then we lose an important resource. Regards Shooke 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only case in which having GFDL content on WikiSource would be a problem is if that content was imported into WikiSource after November 1, 2008. Personally, I'm not aware of any content on WikiSource that has been imported from a GFDL source that was not another Wikimedia project. Do you have any examples? Indeed, this should actually make it easier to import more work into WikiSource since Creative Commons works will now be allowed. Public domain sources will still be treated the same - they will not be licensed at all and will appear with a template notifying the viewer that the work is public domain. I don't have enough knowledge of WikiNews to answer your other question. Also, the vote will be held some time before April according to the WMF. Kaldari 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attribution survey has begun

A survey regarding the attribution issue has been started. Please register your opinion there. Kaldari 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's not available anymore, is it already over? --Elitre 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was just a small "feeler"-survey. Not the official vote or anything. Cbrown1023 talk 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I found some answers on foundation-l. And can't believe my eyes. --Elitre 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding Erik Moeller's message about results and next steps. --Elitre 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-use and attribution clarifications

«If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later»: that's not true, one can choose the GFDL if the content is available under the GFDL, can't he?
Attribution: what does «where possible» mean? I can add a link on a book or a DVD for offline use, but readers would not be able to reach the page or history, while it wouldn't normally be too onerous to list all authors (the real problem is to include a full copy of the GFDL, especially on gadgets such this: see last page). --Nemo 10:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior works

Should we note in our footer something along the lines of (Edits produced prior to %IMPLEMNETATIONDATE% are released solely under the GNU Free Documentation License) for at least some period? xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? If the transition occurs, all past and future edits (with the exception of certain previously published and imported content) will be GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Dragons flight 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, forgot this was also a relicensing effort, I did read over this enwp: recap, and looks like there may be some timelines in play? (e.g. Must be complete by 01AUG2009, may not cover content made between 3NOV2008 and current). We we require a means to not relicense the last few months worth of contributions? (Will this cause document forks?)

The November date affects previously published GFDL-only content that is imported. Normal edits, i.e. original content created by users, will all be relicensed regardless of date. Imported GFDL-only text added between Nov 3rd and the implementation date will probably need to be deleted. Hopefully this is only a tiny precentage of all content. Dragons flight 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies DF! xaosflux ^Talk 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're going to DELETE it all? Why is this needed again? JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how terrible of an idea this is! -24.98.65.137 10:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Please see wikipedia:Special:Log/import. The English Wikipedia imports very little and not very recently. --Michaeldsuarez 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Relicense

Implement a bugtraq:? Is there a bug open to include a specific means to mark future contributions licensing status, as we will be multi licensing by default, but only single licensing certain types of contributions? xaosflux ^Talk 10:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Our goal is that all text content will by CC-BY-SA. Most text will also be GFDL. The current proposal places the responsibility on the reuser to figure out whether a document contains CC-BY-SA-only text or not. Since it only affects imported previously published content, one should be able to identify such imports from the history if they are annotated the way they ought to be. Individual communities can augment this if they wish, for example by adding a CC-BY-SA-only Category tag to articles subject to that restriction. Dragons flight 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison table

I've created a chart comparing GFDL and CC-BY-SA: Licensing update/License comparison. Dragons flight 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I welcome this change. Well done! – Kaihsu 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia import?..

It is known that Wikipedia follows strictly statist and capitalist rules. It means that Wikipedia won't import articles with incompatible license. But if a project with such license allows Wikipedia to do it (the project promise that it won't take the matter to court), will Wikipedia import or not? Caesarion 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

License compatibility needs to be ensured both for us and for the downstream users of Wikimedia content. If you have a specific proposal in mind, I'm sure we'd look at it, but our requirements are pretty firm for importing external content. Dragons flight 08:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If the project can "promise that it won't take the matter to court", then they must have the legal ownership of the text and can put it under an applicable license as well as whatever it is now. But I agree with DF, we should always err on the side of caution and legality – the text on Wikipedia is intended for other use, so "we won't sue Wikipedia" is not good enough. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In one place it says "we will strive to indicate clearly to you on the article or the description page for the file" but in other places it says this can be done in the page history. It needs clarifying which one is actually the case. In reality, it needs to be the latter as in-article attribution gets removed as "spam" on en.wp now. Angela 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been addressed in the text. Dragons flight 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

minor word infelicities in proposed announcements

Having thought about the issue a bit, it seems that, in the absence of a perfect solution (the hope fo which is always justification to do nothing, however awkward the status quo), it seems that dual licensing is about the best that can be done in this situation. I cannot see any harm to Wikiprojects, and there is the possibility of Wikiimprovement. I do wonder whether the server storage capacity planning will be able to keep up though...

There are some glitches in the proposed policy formulations and so there should be a serious improvement, bug detection pass, before adoption by the Board. Or perhaps I missed the opportunity to tune up the phrasing? Ww eng 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the WMF reserves the right to tune things for clarity and elaboration, but the essence of the proposal is essentially fixed. So if you have suggestions for clarifications and better wording feel free to offer them (though they may or may not be acted upon until after the vote). Changes in the structure of the proposal are probably out of the question unless this proposal ends up being rejected by either the community or the Board of Trustees. Dragons flight 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Any hints of dissent on the Board?

Has anyone on the Wikimedia Foundation Board ever indicated that they might not or do not support the transition to GFDL 1.3? 69.228.88.127 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any public comments to that effect, though there have been statements that the Board is unlikely to adopt this should it fail to achieve majority support in the editing community. Dragons flight 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a poll then. I think a day or two should be sufficient to show near unanimity, as long as we advertise on the largest Village Pump(s). People with concerns have had ample time to share them already, and if there are any unresolved concerns, I haven't seen them. 69.228.88.127 08:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A poll will start soon, but a day or two is way to short :) Huib talk 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll of editing community

I'm closing this. Per the timeline, the official community vote is intended to start in less than a week. There is no reason to clutter things with an unofficial poll right now. If people want to continue to express opinions, such as the one in the section below, I am okay with that, but no voting please. -- Dragons flight 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Idea

This is a TERRIBLE idea. It only confuses the hell out of licensing. I, for one, would sue if you misappropriated my content by relicensing it under something other than the GFDL. I'd spend every dollar I had fighting your changes to licensing of my contributions (from many IP addresses all over Georgia Tech). I would cease making edits and tell every person on campus to do the same. If the community really understood what havoc you're causing with this change, they'd be in an uproar! -24.98.65.137 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you describe the havoc you are issuing legal threats about? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All talk, but no proof or examples? Where's your explanation? --Michaeldsuarez 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to save all those dollars you had, because according to U.S. copyright law you will need to wait, "35 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first)," before you can revoke the grant that you made when you submitted your work. 69.228.190.230 03:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're not revoking the GFDL; the content will still be licensed under the GFDL. Anyway, you should read more about the GFDL (specifically, Section 11); the FSF is allowing its clients to switch to or duel-license with a Creative Commons license. --Michaeldsuarez 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel

Here's what Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin says:

GFDL 1.2 expressly says this: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." Seems clear to me that there's no need to amend 1.2 to allow use of 1.3. (That's certainly what the FSF intended.)

HowDoIUseUnifiedLogin? 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For people that want to help to translate but can't speak too many languages

I have this wonderful Firefox add-on that helps me translate stuff called Foxlingo. Check this out for example (and bear in mind that I don't speak Spanish).
Centralnotice in English: ==qqq== {{cn translation status|qqq|ready}} * Please participate in a vote to determine the future copyright terms of Wikimedia projects (vote ends April 23, 2009). * Vote now!
Centralnotice in Spanish: ==qqq== {{traducción estado cn | qqq | listo}} * Por favor, participar en una votación para determinar el futuro del derecho de autor de los proyectos Wikimedia (votación termina 23 de abril de 2009). * Votar ahora!
Let me know if there's anything wrong with the translation. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but we'd rather not use internet translators. :-) Usually the result is not free (some are copyrighted based on the program used to derive it) and not as good as it could be with a real person. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

Second part of second point claims the relicensing is about avoiding FUD while the text itself is FUD. It should be rephrased to say why the new licensing scheme is better instead of making unverified claims about the old one. There should also be something substantial about the legal part of relicensing content, everything I've seen so far is basically "we changed the GFDL so we do whatever we want". Jeblad 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is essentially brief; the Licensing update/Questions and Answers goes into significantly more detail.--Eloquence 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed terms of use

Second point (Terms on edit screen) says that all new content is dual licensed, while point four says it may be licensed CC-by-sa only. Perhaps the text could be modified to say that the text uploaded on this specific edit screen is dual licensed but content uploaded through other means may be CC-by-sa only.

Yes, I think we could try to insert a very simple clarification regarding CC-BY-SA-only content there.--Eloquence 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Third point (attribution) says very small contributons may be filtered out, I like that as it avoid the opposite to identify the main authors, yet it may be necessary to say something that such filtering should make some safeguards as to satisfy any local laws about identification of main authors. That is, filtering out contributions less that 100 chars in a 500 chars article is not the same as filtering out contributions of 100 chars in a 50K article

Fundamentally, when people create author lists, they must apply their own judgment as to who to (not) include. I think that at least the standardized licensing terms aren't the place for this, though it's a question that's well suited to the development of community guidelines. That said, I don't anticipate that this will be much of a problem as most people will probably choose to attribute by URL instead.--Eloquence 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Third point (attribution of rich media) says media created through substantive collaborations can be treated as text. What is the real meaning behind "created", is it the creation of the original (musicians recorded) or the creation of the edited copy (someone postediting the recording)? The first one seems acceptable to me, while the second really are about attribution of a derivative work. The later may also be used to bypass attribution of the original creator.

It's intended to be the latter for contributions made through Wikimedia. However, given the restriction to substantive collaboration, the attribution-by-URL wouldn't be possible for mere attempts to inflate the author count without also substantially and usefully deriving a new work. The intent here is to develop language which can work well with future massive collaboration scenarios around rich media.--Eloquence 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Third point (attribution of externally contributed content) should say something about what is externally contributed as almost everything will somehow be related to the community. One possible interpretation is that "externally contributed content" is something not produced for Wikimedia, which is a very difficult interpretation as it is impossible to verify, an other one is that copyright/ownership of such content is held by a non-person (ie a museum).

A very good point; I agree that we should try to come up with a good definition of what "external" means here. I would suggest a definition that essentially refers to content that the uploader "cannot with reasonable effort obtain under terms equivalent" to those required of all Wikimedia contributors. I think we can resolve this question collectively after the licensing update as it relates to the general question of what our policy on externally contributed content is. The LU doesn't answer that question; it merely defines basic parameters of the general Wikimedia approach to licensing.--Eloquence 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

False. Under your proposed terms of use external content cannot be introduced into wikipedia.Geni 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Third point (share alike) makes it possible to make content that may be impossible to reimport given one of the possible interpretations of point two.

It will definitely be possible to re-add CC-BY-SA only content (see above), and there shouldn't be any obligations for continued dual-licensing by third parties. I am open to adding this as a suggestion, though.--Eloquence 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

An that seems to be all from me! Jeblad 11:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IP-contributions

If the licensing is changed i would advocate to an additional change. In fact to the unkown authorship, it is currently not clear how IP-contributions are to be handled. A new license should be aware of this problem. If the foundation irrecovable would be representative for all IP-contributions all licensing questions could be handled without respect to unknown authors. --Mijobe 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In practice, where IP authors are listed, we've generally credited them as "x anonymous authors". Crediting any authors except by means of a hyperlink is not mandatory, but it can't hurt to just express the aforementioned terms in a couple of places explicitly. I don't consider that an essential change and am comfortable making it after the vote if we go ahead with the implementation (since we're pretty much ready to go, I want to avoid additional burden on translators at this stage).--Eloquence 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Realistically saying "this edit/content was written by Badmouse923" and "this edit/content was written by 76.101.42.5" seem (superficially at least) equal as to attribution. If a selected random string of text can be deemed to legally meet a need to "identify" an authorthen, if that author chooses to edit under a random string of 4 binary numbers, that too "identifies" an author, at least in principle. That is how they have chosen to be identified, or their preferred attribution, for that edit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text of footer: proposed improvement

As of today, the suggested text for the footer says:

All text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. Text may also be available under the GNU Free Documentation License. See ((link to copyright policy)) for further details. See the page history for a list of authors. Media files are available under different licenses; click the file for more information.

I believe "file" is misleading here. The notice does not primarily refer to displaying entire media object in the File: namespace, but to embedded media aggregated with a normal page. In the latter case, "click on the file for more information" makes no sense.

I propose:

... Media objects are available under different licenses; click the image, video, etc. for more information. --G.Hagedorn 08:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "click the embedded media file for more information"?--Eloquence 16:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "file" does not make sense here from a consumers point of view. The image is simple a part of the page on the screen - the fact that in html this is realized by relating to multiple files is a very technical perspective. Perhaps media "object" or "item"? --G.Hagedorn 20:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Related: is the statement true at all? It seems true for images only, but not for sound or movies. --G.Hagedorn 20:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Versioning.

Dear colleagues,

I suppose that we should explicitly specify versions of the licenses in the Terms of Use texts.

It should be "1.2 or later" for GFDL and "3.0" for CC-BY-SSA.

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Since we're about ready to start the vote and this isn't an essential change, we'll defer it to later, but all references to the licenses will be versioned.--Eloquence 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with vote software

Sorry because I don't know exactly where to put these comments in, but I think there is error in vote server's authentication. I just tried to vote for the 2nd time for fun, but the server accepted, it didn't show me an error as I expected. Can anyone else confirm this error and file it to technical group? Vinhtantran 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It cancels your prior vote and replaces it. Dragons flight 02:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At least it should inform users about the replacement. I remembered I had translated those kind of messages in Translatewiki.net. Vinhtantran 07:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the vote announced?

The aforementioned header on the English Wikipedia isn't there. 85.196.111.46 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, logging in doesn't work either. 85.196.111.46 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was able to find the header by enabling JavaScript, but apparently I need to "check my spelling", because my user doesn't exist. 85.196.111.46 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you know, suddenly it started working. 3rd time's the charm! 85.196.111.46 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here, look up a few section for answers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added link to vote page

I added a link to the actual vote page (diff). This was curiously missing. By the way, it would be nice if the SecurePoll page would link back to Licensing_update, so people coming there directly can find more info easily. -- Duesentrieb 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that link. Huib talk 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, got reverted on that [3]. Why do I need to come to the page via my "home wiki", and what does that even mean?... Maybe links for the largest wikis could be offered? or at least there could be an explanation how to find the vote page. As it is, it's really confusing. I come to the page, read it, figure out i want to vote, but it doesn't tell me how. That's pretty bad. -- Duesentrieb 12:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A link definitely needs to be here to the vote, and from the sitenotice and vote page to here. The link to the meta page will work if you have sufficient edits here (fairly likely due to the low number required); otherwise the home wiki link needs to be used it seems (although in these days of Single User Login, I'm not quite sure why). A small table of links might be useful, if that's the only way to do it. Mike Peel 12:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your right to vote (e.g. having 25 contributions, etc.) is checked against the local wiki when you visit Special:SecurePoll on your home wiki. Having a link here would only work for Meta Wikipedians. I suppose we could have a list of local links, but that would be a very long list. Dragons flight 12:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Let#s just have that explanation in a prominent spot, with the instructions "go to Special:SecurePoll/vote/1 on your home wiki". But that should really bet there. Telling people they can vote, but not where and how, is really confusing. -- Duesentrieb 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-GFDL projects

I find the global notice for the licensing change is likely to cause a little confusion on Wikinews, where the license is CC-BY (yes, the plain CC-BY with no suffix).

The actual vote page specifies that it is all currently GFDL projects, but it does not anywhere specify that there are exceptions, and what they are. I feel that either a Wikinews-specific global message would be appropriate, or something on the page it takes you to.

It is indeed in the interest of Wikinewsies to see the change go through, the compatibility it would give with WP material would be most useful. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It does affect Wikinewsies insofar as they have uploaded GFDL (without "1.2 only") multimedia directly to Wikinews or Commons, but sure, feel free to reword the notice on Wikinews to be more clear for its particular context. :-) --Eloquence 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Demanding either a URL or a list of author as an attribution is a bad idea. Other options should be available

The instructions on how to make an attribution when reusing a Wikimedia project text say: "Attribution of text: To re-distribute an article page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you are re-using ... or c) a list of all authors"

URLs are often long and obscure, especially when the article is written in a non-Latin alphabet. For example, this is the URL of the history page of the article about the Wikimedia Foundation in the Hebrew Wikipedia: http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%9F_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94&action=history. It is very easy to get this URL wrong when citing the article, and it doesn't say much to the average reader.

The list of authors includes at least 10 major contributors, and if exclude only the really minor edits, we'll get to 15 or maybe even more. These contributors identify themselves in all kind of nicks, using different set of characters, and some of them are known only by an IP address.

I think we should allow people to give an attribution by stating the name of the article, the specific project name, and the date and time of the cited version, e.g. "Taken from: קרן ויקימדיה, The Hebrew language Wikipedia, 5 April 2009 01:09". In case non-Latin characters are unavailable to the redistributer, I would even allow: "Taken from the article about the Wikimedia Foundation on the Hebrew language Wikipedia, 5 April 2009 01:09", or alternatively using a known transliteration, e.g. "qrn vyqmdyh (transliterated), The Hebrew language Wikipedia, 5 April 2009 01:09". Dror_K 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קרן_ויקימדיה is a functioning URL, however, and also http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=קרן_ויקימדיה&action=history. --Nemo 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not every medium will support these characters though; furthermore, unwieldy URLs are inappropriate in various settings, such as twitter or Braille or spoken text. I agree with Dror that we should interpret the attribution requirement of CC-BY-SA as liberally as possible: clear identification of the project, article and version are sufficient. AxelBoldt 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dual licensed, doesn't that mean we keep the old problems while adding new?

I voted for the change. However, the thought occurs to me, if the media is dual licensed, doesn't that mean that we keep the old problems with the GDFL and attribution while potentially adding new problems. My vote is still case for the change, but this nagging thought does worry me a bit. 98.119.207.176 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Any given reuse will generally only need to follow one or the other, and hence they can choose whichever creates fewer problems within that application. Dragons flight 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)