8 ms·

This might be the largest contributor relicensing project of any IP category: 2800 people and companies. 94% progress is impressive.

stefan_ 5y ago
Not to be crass, but surely some of these people are just.. dead? It's an old project, and a lot of contributors.
- nightfly 5y ago
  What happens to the ownership of code in that case?
  - vortico 5y ago
    Ownership goes to the author's heirs.
throwaway81523 5y ago
Wikipedia changed its license around 10 years ago, I think.
- remram 5y ago
  This was enabled by the license though (GNU Free Documentation License) so they didn't need to contact individual contributors.
- smitop 5y ago
  Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later, so relicensed by convincing the FSF to release an updated version of the GFDL (version 1.3) that adds a very narrowly worded clause allowing relicensing that pretty much only applied to Wikipedia.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Which does point to the hidden danger of the FSF licenses when “any later version” exists.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      It's not exactly hidden when it's clearly stated in the license, and relatively common practice to omit that clause.
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        I don't think most people expect the next version of the license to ... lead to a completely different license.
        bawolff 5y ago
        Its not totally different - cc-by-sa is pretty similar in spirit to gfdl with no cover text, non-derrivative sections etc. Of course practically speaking, being able to legally print out a wikipedia article without printing out the entire gfdl is a pretty big difference. To the point where i am aware of people licensing photos under gfdl to claim its open source while in practise its impossoble to reuse practically. I mean your point still stands that its weird to release a new license just for wikipedia.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    It didn't only apply to Wikipedia, there were plenty of other large public wikis that used to be GFDL-licensed only and were able to transition to CC-by-sa.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    More reading for those interested: https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ > An MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site] is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008. > The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
OpenStreetMap’s relicensing (from CC-BY-SA to the Open Database Licence) involved more contributors and, unlike Wikipedia’s, wasn’t assisted by a licence hack.
- bumblebritches5 5y ago
  Tell me more about this license hack?

stefan_ 5y ago

Not to be crass, but surely some of these people are just.. dead? It's an old project, and a lot of contributors.

nightfly 5y ago
What happens to the ownership of code in that case?
- vortico 5y ago
  Ownership goes to the author's heirs.

throwaway81523 5y ago

Wikipedia changed its license around 10 years ago, I think.

remram 5y ago
This was enabled by the license though (GNU Free Documentation License) so they didn't need to contact individual contributors.
smitop 5y ago
Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later, so relicensed by convincing the FSF to release an updated version of the GFDL (version 1.3) that adds a very narrowly worded clause allowing relicensing that pretty much only applied to Wikipedia.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Which does point to the hidden danger of the FSF licenses when “any later version” exists.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    It's not exactly hidden when it's clearly stated in the license, and relatively common practice to omit that clause.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      I don't think most people expect the next version of the license to ... lead to a completely different license.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        Its not totally different - cc-by-sa is pretty similar in spirit to gfdl with no cover text, non-derrivative sections etc. Of course practically speaking, being able to legally print out a wikipedia article without printing out the entire gfdl is a pretty big difference. To the point where i am aware of people licensing photos under gfdl to claim its open source while in practise its impossoble to reuse practically. I mean your point still stands that its weird to release a new license just for wikipedia.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  It didn't only apply to Wikipedia, there were plenty of other large public wikis that used to be GFDL-licensed only and were able to transition to CC-by-sa.
- dataflow 5y ago
  More reading for those interested: https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ > An MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site] is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008. > The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Doctor_Fegg 5y ago

OpenStreetMap’s relicensing (from CC-BY-SA to the Open Database Licence) involved more contributors and, unlike Wikipedia’s, wasn’t assisted by a licence hack.

bumblebritches5 5y ago
Tell me more about this license hack?