Avisynth talk:Copyrights
From Avisynth
[edit] AviSynth Wiki Licence Issues
Hi, I want discuss general licensing problem of wiki here on example of this article Arrays.
Final note of current revision of article says: "Note: This article has been based on documentation from AVSLib website; thus derivative works should follow the [initial licence] (FDL)."
But if we strictly act according to this license, we must put to wiki "The invariant sections" (avslib logo, project page, license itself, and some circes. :)
IMO, the Invarinat sections of FDL is generally very bad thing, that is why wikipedia do not use it.
Of course the author has all copyright reserved and can post his text under additional license. So, it is the case here?
So, this copy of article is not under FDL with Invariant..., but under some other license. May be under FDL without Invariant sections? Or under common license of this wiki CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 (i am still not sure that it is right license through)?
- The article was first published to the old wiki, which did not state any licence at all; thus I provided my prefered licence, to give permission to use and modify (since under copyright law not stating a licence is equivalent to "all rights reserved", which means written approval is needed for every derivative work).
- Since I am the original author of the Arrays article, this issue can be simply resolved by changing the licence to the wiki's default; I can do it in the next few days. I include also my opinion the general questions, below. Gzarkadas 16:39, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
General questions:
1. May we put here at mediawiki some text under not Attribution-ShareAlike license?
Other example is Filter_SDK: it is not under Attribution-ShareAlike license.
2. If yes, how we must mark this text (by license note), who may edit the text (contribute) and what is license of edited text. (preserve original ?)
Probably we must change bottom "editing" phrase to:
Please note that all contributions to Avisynth as a default are considered to be released under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Fizick 15:10, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
- Question 1 >> IMO it is possible as long as the text:
- Is under a free licence.
- Is also provided to the wiki users with the same licence as that stated by the author.
- Since (see disclaimers of main page) the wiki makes generally its content available under Attribution-ShareAlike license, such texts should have custom disclaimers and also the general disclaimers of the wiki should state that there may be parts of the documentation that have other licence.
- For clarity & ease of use, we need to ensure there is 1 license that can be applied to the whole wiki. We've chosen to focus on CC-BY-SA. So once old content is relicensed, all new contributions need to be CC-BY-SA at minimum. If an author wants to contribute under a different license, they should issue a dual license: CC-BY-SA and their license of choice. --RichardB 19:19, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
- Another issue, purely administrative, is that not any licence text may be accepted; this needs backup from a legal team to evaluate each user's variant. But a pre-determined list of acceptable free licences may be setup.
- Agreed. I think we should only allow licenses that are at least as permissive as CC-BY-SA. So CC-BY would be ok but CC-BY-ND is not allowed. --RichardB 19:19, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
- Agreed. GNU FDL is not an option (now it is not compatible). What about recent CC BY-SA 3.0 ? Can our wiki (re)licensed under 3.0 ? Fizick 21:47, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
- Ok. The 3.0 changes look good. --RichardB 23:49, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
- Consider: somebody take our content under CC-BY-SA 2.5 and publishes some derived work (article) under later CC-BY-SA 3.0 (it is possible under license). Now we probably may not get this new content to wiki under CC-BY-SA 2.5 (license downgrade is not possible). IMO it is good time to upgrading to CC v.3.0: anyway we removed 'non-commercial' very recently und must ask at least main contributors (especially Wilbert :-). Fizick 12:14, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
- Question 2 >> (See comment above for the rationale):
- how we must mark this text? -> individually, per text or wiki page (the responsibility of original author). For the time being respecting this text and protecting it from changes is easy; later it may need some tech-stuff to make an interface that allows the original author to set it and ensure that is remains unchanged.
- who may edit the text? -> any user as long as he/she does not change the licence.
- what is license of edited text? -> that of the original; anything else requires that the initial licence permits change of licence terms.
- Changing the bottom phrase IMHO does not solve any problem, since it does not state what happens in non-default cases; it is anyway already stated by the wiki's disclaimer about terms of availability.
- In my view and since already there are parts of the core AviSynth documentation (such as the Filter_SDK and perhaps the offline docs also?) that are not under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5, it is best to compile a list of acceptable alternative free licences for the wiki's documentation (there aren't that many) and define a policy about how the selection of licence is made and stated and how it is preserved during users' edits.
- Another issue is how we cope with the past (the old wiki and the lack of any licence note); can the contributors be identified (by the logs)? may some parts of the documentation need to be removed simply because their copyright state - ie the holder - is unclear (keeping them has the potential of future legal problems)? Just some thoughts for further discussion.
Gzarkadas 16:39, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
- Probably we must try to restore authors (or posters) of all old wiki pages. For example, by posting to Discussion of correspondent page. If old history is available (even with ip-adresses), we can post whole history list there.
Fizick 11:41, 14 May 2007 (PDT)
[edit] Question 3
- I think we should stipulate that all contributions become copyright of the Avisynth project. That way if we ever need to relicense something, we don't have to track down all authors. Most user-contribution websites work like this (Doom9 forum, Wikipedia). --RichardB 19:27, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
- I hope we will NOT relicense anything :-) (offtopic: is any smiles at wiki ?) Can you provide a link with text copyright transfer rules at doom9 forum or wikipedia? Important note: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Some forums probably has somewhat similar, but not copyright transfer: contribution may be 'atributed' to forum (organization, wiki) instead of authors. It is option under CC BY-SA license. Fizick 21:47, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Interested link with similar wiki: http://www.wlug.org.nz/WlugWikiLicense Fizick 21:47, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
- You're right: it looks like WLug, Doom9, etc transfer attribution only, not the actual copyright. Other forums I've worked on do transfer copyright. I think it is valuable. The advantage is you can relicense -- not always a bad thing :-) What happens when CC releases v4.0 licenses? Would be nice if we can "upgrade" easily. What if someone wanted to publish some Avisynth articles in a book? Would be almost impossible if we had to ask every author. --RichardB 23:49, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
- If somebody want publish Avisynth articles in a book, it is not a problem. He may published it (without any asking), if this article will be under CC-BY-SA. And I am not sure that all authors want assign copyright. But CC 4.0 is good point. Lets write in a terms of use, that 'contributions (and whole wiki content) may be relicensed by Avisynth developers team under compatible license'. Fizick 12:16, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
CC version 3.0 (unlike v.2.5) contain new (in bold) 4.b: "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License. http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses Discussion: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/005013.html May be some future version of GNU FDL will be declared as compatible Fizick 21:18, 28 May 2007 (PDT)
Recently CC BY-SA 3.0 (not 2.5) was translated to Russian (not-officialy yet, but we hope soon) http://wiki.ccrussia.org/index.php?title=Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_Legal_code We want to relicense our Russian Avisynth translation to CC BY-SA 3.0 Fizick 01:55, 12 June 2007 (PDT)
[edit] Authors who give permission to relicense their old contributions to online (wiki) or offline (CVS) documentation under CC BY-SA 3.0
Richard Berg 'RichardBerg'
Klaus Post 'sh0dan'
Wilbert Dijkhof 'WilbertD', 'Wilbert'
Ernst Peche 'Warpenterprises'
Ian Brabham 'IanB'
James D. Lin 'stickboy'
'berrinam' - article on interlace detection
Alexander Balakhnin 'Fizick' - Russian translation and other
'Arlsair' - German translation
Jonathan Ernst 'jernst' - French translation
Cédric Paillot 'JasonFly', 'macpaille' - French translation
Rotildo Longo 'RoLon' - author of Avisynth Portuguese translation
'Eugen65' - Russian translation
'Drakon Rider' - Russian translation
'Turyst04' - Russian translation
Leonid Makarovsky 'leonid_makarovsky' - Russian translation
'Soroka' - Russian translation
'RBF' - Russian translation
George Zarkadas 'gzarkadas'
Tonny S Petersen 'tsp'
Alexander Nickolsky - Russian translation
