I'm considering the idea[1] of taking (part of) this canonical page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions
... and maintaining it downstream at, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_software_contributions
On the face of it, the source content is the same license as Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page as a downstream is as simple as copy + paste, then watch the canonical page and update the downstream page as appropriate.
But there is an additional clause in contributing content to Wikipedia, that it be contributed under the GFDL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_...
If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
If I were the copyright holder for the Fedora content in question, I would just accept that. However, the [[Red Hat contributions]] page on the Fedora wiki is definitely an aggregate work.[2] Interestingly, it appears the vast majority of the contributions are from Red Hat employees.
If copyright holder permission is required or preferred, we could obtain it and put a notice on the page that future contributions are going to be relicensed at Wikipedia under ... the GFDL specifically? Yeah, specifics make more sense.
How to handle all this?
Thanks - Karsten
[1] Not being sure about the cultural stance of being @redhat.com and doing this, I've requested help on the subject here:
http://iquaid.org/2009/12/14/how-can-we-share-some-love-about-red-hat-with-w...
[2] Full history for this page on this wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hat_contributions&limit=...
There is a copyright history that goes back to the previous wiki. We can obtain that list, if needed. :)
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
But there is an additional clause in contributing content to Wikipedia, that it be contributed under the GFDL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_...
If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
"If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. ***You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author.***"
***emphasis mine
That's the second paragraph of your own link... given that the content is already CC-BY-SA, it should just be importable straight into wikipedia (doesn't need to be GFDL), unless I'm missing something?
Or to put it more clearly: * it is my understanding that all content in the fedora wiki is CC-BY-SA * it is my understanding that wikipedia can accept all CC-BY-SA content. (GFDL is no longer required.)
therefore: * it is my understanding that all content in the fedora wiki can be exported over to wikipedia.
Quite possibly I'm wrong on all of these; it is late and I am tired :)
Luis
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:28:54 -0800 Luis Villa luis@tieguy.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
But there is an additional clause in contributing content to Wikipedia, that it be contributed under the GFDL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_...
If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
"If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. ***You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author.***"
***emphasis mine
That's the second paragraph of your own link... given that the content is already CC-BY-SA, it should just be importable straight into wikipedia (doesn't need to be GFDL), unless I'm missing something?
Or to put it more clearly:
- it is my understanding that all content in the fedora wiki is
CC-BY-SA
- it is my understanding that wikipedia can accept all CC-BY-SA
content. (GFDL is no longer required.)
therefore:
- it is my understanding that all content in the fedora wiki can be
exported over to wikipedia.
Quite possibly I'm wrong on all of these; it is late and I am tired :)
I think Luis is correct, but in any event, to the extent that Red Hat is the CC-BY-SA licensor here (by virtue of the Fedora CLA, and/or of the contributions by Red Hat employees qua Red Hat employees), and unless there are obligations to other licensors/copyright holders that would prevent this (which seems not to be the case here), and unless non-Red-Hat contributors do not object as to their copyrightable contributions, such content is also available under the much-maligned GFDL. That can be regarded as a general policy.
- RF
-
Karsten Wade -
Luis Villa -
Richard Fontana