YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:Copyleft

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

See also: shared:Talk:Copyleft


Hey wait a minute. Shouldn't you say that "all work is considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license 1.0 or any later version released by Creative Commons"? So far it looks like you guys are locking in on just the 1.0 version of this license which may prevent you from taking advantage of changes that 1.1 or greater versions of the CC-Att/SA license may have (such as possible compatibility with the GNU FDL 2.0 or later so long as no invariant options are exercised). --Maveric149

Mav, you're absolutely right. Weirdly, the CC license don't have a "or any later version" clause, nor do the suggested tags for using the license. I'm contacting the CC people about this issue right now to see how we can deal with it. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Evan 19:01, 14 Aug 2003 (PDT)
That's a big uh oh on CC's part. Glad I was able to help. --mav

New version of CC licenses[edit]

Moved from travellers' pub by Evan

A draft of the new version of the Creative Commons licenses is up for review until February 15. They've put up the draft version Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which includes all the stipulations of the other licenses, so you can review them all together.

I have some problems with the new licenses, which I've noted on the cc-licenses mailing list. My two main issues are:

  1. The new wording for ShareAlike seems to allow people to take our by-sa content and put it under by-sa-nc. In other words, people could take our content and not let us re-incorporate the changes back into Wikitravel. I don't think that's all that hot.
  2. The warranty on copyright violation, trademark, privacy rights, etc. has been removed. That means that each contributor who edits or changes an article can be held responsible for copyright violations included by an early author. This doesn't seem fair to me.

There's also no mention of mixing by-sa-licensed stuff with GFDL'd stuff, which is a major concern for us (so we can share our content with Wikipedia, for instance).

Anyways, spread the word. --Evan 11:04, 27 Jan 2004 (EST)

Uh oh[edit]

I hope this isn't really a problem, or if it is that mentioning it here doesn't make it worse, but I've noticed that although we have a notice of the license we'd like to grant, we don't seem to actually have a copyright notice anywhere. Am I wrong? Should we maybe consider changing that? How would it be phrased? Something like "© Copyright <some person or orginazation> and others", with the and others being operative? I suppose there would then be some clarification somewhere. -- Mark 07:02, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Doesn't matter, you do not need a copyright notice to retain copyright on something. Everything you create, you automatically own the copyright for unless you explicitely give it away (by posting something into the public domain, for examle). As always, IANAL but that is the impression I have after following 10 years of copyright discussion on the internet. (Note that in the past, pre-1980-something, this was different. Also note that it differs from Trademark law; you have to actively claim and defend a trademark to retain it; not so with copyright.) Basically, each of us retains the copyright to every bit we create here; we only license it away freely under the as-license. That's my take on it. -- Nils 09:27, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)
That's about it. I create an article, and when you edit it, you create a derivative work under the license. --Evan 13:18, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)


Mark: I unprotected this page. I don't know if that happened because of a slip of the mouse, or on purpose. Anyways, if it was on purpose, you need to list why you did it (according to the Wikitravel:protected page policy).

I realize this page is important, but I don't think it's that important. I think that this page explains our copyleft license, but the license text is the "official" text. I don't think having it vandalized for an hour or two would be that bad. Also, it hasn't been vandalized.

More than anything, though, I really hate protected pages. The less HardSecurity we have, the better. --Evan 13:47, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)

oh gosh. Did I protect this page? I didn't mean to, it must have been a slip of the mouse. Sorry. -- Mark 14:26, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Ah, from the protected log I see that I did protect the parent page. Sorry. Apparently from the same log it's not a terribly uncommon accident though. ;) -- Mark 14:31, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)


Evan, what are your thoughts on upgrading to by-sa 2.0, given that 1.0 has no provision for an upgrade (which I'm pleased to see 2.0 does - "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License...")? For OGL I'm thinking of doing what I did before and announcing the proposed change and giving people a month or so to object - an "or forever hold your peace" sort of deal. --Earle 11:33, 25 May 2004 (BST)

To tell the truth, I've been dreading this moment since the new licenses were announced last year.
I think the main problem is that technically it's not up to Wikitravel to decide whether the work of folks who contributed in the past is available under this or that license. It's up to the individual authors. So, to move everything to the new license, the most correct action is to get the approval of all contributors to relicense their work under 2.0, or remove work of those who don't want to give that approval, or whom we can't contact. This is, of course, going to be hugely difficult.
The other option is just to go ahead and do it with approval of many or most. This means that we'll have some license time-bombs in our work that may come back to haunt us, or, worse, haunt our redistributors/reusers/derivers. Consider if Lonely Planet decided to include one of our guides in one of their books, and an opportunistic contributor decided to make some money by suing them for license infringement. Although this is extremely unlikely, I would hate to have Wikitravel work under a shadow of license problems, and make the work unusable. (That's also part of my problems with using World 66 content -- they moved from the GNU FDL to the by-sa without getting approval from contributors.)
Personally, I think the advantages of moving to 2.0 don't outweigh these disadvantages. I have some serious qualms about this "upgrade", since I think having a representation of right to contribute is kind of important (it covers the butt of everyone else on the wiki who edits the page later). The main advantage I see is the any-later-version clause, which will make it easier to do license upgrades later. In the case of, say, a court decision or law that invalidates part of the license, we would be able to keep operating with a quickly-amended license out of CC.
I think I'm going to start Wikitravel:Creative Commons 2.0 license to discuss this, though. It's really a hairy, hairy problem. --Evan 14:22, 26 May 2004 (EDT)
The problem of moving existing entries to CC2.0 is a thorny issue; but there shouldn't be any problem in immediately making new contributions available under "1.0 or later". That would mean that we could say that any entry created after now would be available under 1.0 or 2.0 (or 3.0 whenever it comes out, etc), and that older articles are for the moment only available under 1.0, unless and until we get the individual copyright holders' permission. The earlier the text is changed to say "1.0 or later", the fewer entries will be affected and the easier the issue will eventually be to sort out, so why wait? TimM 15:09, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I agree, the contributions should be allowed under the newer license. Afterall, the 1.0 license is a draft license no longer recommended to be used. Many users on the English Wikipedia page have agreed to multi-license their contributions, often times into the obsolete version 1.0 license used here. I imagine that some users may not be comfortable licensing contributions under a draft license, and this could be a problem in the future. Of course who knows how many English Wikipedia articles could even be useful to WikiTravel. Change the licensing now before it is too late. The English Wikipedia is stuck with GFDL forever, even with its problems. I think one of the biggest problems with NOT doing this is that very few other projects will ever use the version 1.0 license, and as such WikiTravel will not be able to receive collaboration by any other project ever. Allowing any version number would allow it to stay viable for the future. -- Ram-Man 11:03, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
First off, the 1.0 versions of the CC licenses are not "drafts". I don't know where that came from. Maybe you're confusing them with the 2.0 license drafts that circulated at the beginning of 2004? Those eventually became the 2.0 licenses.
Click on the copyright link to the creative commons web site at the bottom of the page (Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0.). Then click on the "Legal Code (the full license)" for full text of the license. It reads in part "DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DRAFT LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP" (emphasis added). In addition, the licenses page does not list the license that we use, thus it is obsolete and/or phased out. -- Ram-Man 16:17, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
Second, the 2.0 versions of the licenses have barely any advantage over the 1.0 license. The main difference is that the 2.0 license have a "for any later version" stipulation, which would mean we wouldn't have to go through this process again. That's about it. The other nice thing is that there's compatibility with the iCommons versions, meaning that our multiple language versions could (possibly) be licensed under different country's copyright regimes.
Third, it's a huge and disruptive effort to transition to the 2.0 licenses. We need to get the consent of everyone who's worked on a page to re-license the page -- and take out the edits of people who don't consent or who we can't reach. "Dual licensing" is a huge mistake that makes no sense in a copyleft environment -- please see Wikitravel:dual licensing for details. And having a site with multiple pages under different copyleft licenses that can't be mixed will be totally unacceptable. It's hard enough getting people to understand that they can't copy stuff from other sites; trying to tell them that they can't copy stuff from within the same site will be ridiculous.
You're absolutely right, Evan. Now that I think about it there's no way we can get away with mixed licenses on the site. It's an all-or-nothing deal. -Nick 13:27, 18 Nov 2004 (EST)
I'm committed to getting us moved forward to a 2.0 license, but I don't see an immediate need for it. I know there's always "upgrade fever" when a new version of software comes out, and I guess it's that way with licenses too. But I think a go-slow approach is the best here -- this is a lot of work for a teensy payoff. --Evan 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
Isn't it that the longer we are waiting now (btw: waiting for what ?), the more painful the transition is going to be ? All the new articles are still licensed under 1.0 while they could be 2.0 already. And the more 1.0 articles, the more hassle with getting their authors' consent to upgrade. Just my 3 eurocents. Wojsyl 16:44, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
I also agree that new articles should be created under the new license (and it should be done as soon as possible). I can't see any reason why this would be a bad thing, aside from the possibility that getting the Wiki software to use multiple licensing terms depending on the article could be a little tricky to implement. -Nick 12:52, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
I will not deny the technical difficulties of making a switch, but I believe it to be worthwhile. Obviously this is not something that you can force through and it should have the vote of a lot of people (especially those who actually have done much work on this project, unlike myself who is predominately an English Wikipedia user), and it should be given some thought. The reason for a quick change is mainly because of the clause in 2.0 that allows for later versions. The reason I am involved with this is because I am trying to sign people up to voluntarily dual-license their English Wikipedia changes so that some of the articles can be used here at WikiTravel, but I think that using a draft license may make people second guess signing onto 1.0. I'm not saying anything is wrong with it, but it could make people nervous, but maybe that's just a red-herring. After thinking about it, I suppose dual-licensing is a big headache and would cause many problems so that a complete switch to 2.0 probably makes the most sense, although it will be somewhat painful initially. As noted above, the 1.0 license we are using is not even advertised on the Creative Commons website. What that means is that there is a good chance that no other (new?) project will ever use this license, which limits our exposure and usefulness to others. -- Ram-Man 16:27, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)

Hi all, not sure what the current status is and if there will be an upgrade? If I want to make a travel site which used info from wikitravel I still need to use the 1.0 license, correct? If I want to share all my content under 3.0 or other version, does it mean I cannot use any of the wikitravel (or wikipedia for that matter), even if I attribute the parts taken from Wikitravel? Any news on teh updating or is this cancelled forever now? thanks, --Lowlander 06:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Bump. I think we urgently need to upgrade, probably to 3.0. See #GFDL_and_Creative_Commons. Pashley 09:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I think all content written from a certain date should be multi-licensed under all CC-BY-SA licenses. Currently we have no compatibility with most CC-BY-SA licensed projects like openstreetmap and definately no compatibility with the worlds biggest copyleft licensed site (wikipedia). --Anonymous101 12:58, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Other languages[edit]

With Japanese Wikitravel on its way to starting, would it be possible or advisable to license it under CC 2.0? Are the other language versions considered separate entities in terms of licensing? -- Paul Richter 03:09, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Not a bad idea at all. The only headache I can foresee is image reuse, as theoretically — or maybe that should 'legally' — an unannotated image here is by default CC 1.0-only and thus can't be reused. Jpatokal 03:24, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
Also translation. I'd like to have all the multi-lingual language versions be compatible. I want to start an upgrade process after I do the 1.4 software rollout. --Evan 07:19, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

The work of[edit]

Swept in from the Wikitravel:Travelers' pub:

Hi there, everytime I open an article I notice the message last modified by..., based on work by... and so on. In my opinion this is a very nice idea to give credit to those users who have contributed. But what makes me a bit angry is that after I have written the whole thing and someone just changed a comma and I edit it again, my edit is based on the work of xxx, but it doesn't say anything about the big amount of work I have done before... Maybe it is more fair to add the names of all contributers, including the last (if it's his/her second/third... entry). Felix 14:29, 29 June 2005 (GMT)

Contributions are listed by time (last edit first). It would be quite a challenge, or at least involve a lot more overhead, to start tracking the quantity (much less the quality) of those edits... and even if implemented, would a spammer then get to the top of the list because it adds 50K of "n00d young sheep!!!1111!!!1" to every page? Jpatokal 21:18, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Felix: do you want it to say, "Last modified by Felix, based on the work of Someone Else and Felix"? Would that communicate that you'd done the lion's share of the work? I don't think so. And if you'd made 6 edits, I think it would look kind of funny to say "Last modified by Felix, based on the work of Felix, Felix, Felix, Felix, and Felix".
The credits block aggregates by your last edit, so the most recent edits go up front. The most recent editor is the Licensor per the Wikitravel:copyleft (they made the most recent derivative work), so they are highlighted. --Evan 08:41, 6 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Vanity. Clutter. Get rid of it. At the bottom of this page right this minute I see "Wikitravel user(s) ...Evan, ... Evan, ... Evan, Evan, ... Evan ...". Yes, that's right, 2 of the Evans are beside each other. (Nothing personal at all, Evan, just that Evan was the most repeated.) Just my opinion. Nurg 00:33, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

How to record permission of copyright holder[edit]

I´m about to ask a copyright holder to donate some of their copyright content to Wikitravel. Of course I need to inform them of the implications of the Copyleft, and get their permission. What form does this permission need to take? Is an email from them to me sufficient? Where do I record that email? Or do they need to create a Wikitravel account and post the information themselves, where I can edit it? JimDeLaHunt 17:41, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)

For now, just put a note on the talk page of the article you're adding text for. If it's an image, just add a note on the image page. --Evan 18:43, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
I had a similar question. I would like to add some info from World66,* which is now licensed under cc-by-sa-1.0 (I see your concerns listed above) and has more info than wikitravel on certain topics (though some is outdated, e.g., prices still in DM for Germany articles!). The wikitravel articles list all authors at the bottom of the page. However, if I copy something from world66, it will be listed as my contribution rather than that of world66. Would this then cause problems for redistibutors (since they wouldn't know to acknowledge world66 as a contributor)? Also, the world66 does not seem to list individual contributors. Note that World66 is just an example here, the issue holds for other sources of cc-by-sa-1.0 info. -- Brendio 16:54, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

So, I'd like to bump this discussion because I think we're not fully complying with the attribution requirements of our license. This is true especially if you consider that Wikitravel is also aimed at making printable guides and the printable versions of our articles do not include the talk pages, where the additional credits have usually been recorded. Also, the image credits can be just one click away on the online version, but do not immediately show on screen and are lost forever when the articles are printed out. I know this probably won't be easy to solve but it is something that has been bugging me for quite a while and I think we'd have to be more strict about it if we really want to be trusted and have our own rules followed. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 20:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

CC-by licenses[edit]

Can we use content under (any) CC-by licenses here? Or just those under cc-by-1.0? Or none? Thanks. Ricardo (Rmx) 21:46, 13 March 2006 (EST)

1.0 is definitely OK, anything else is questionable. There is a need to move the site to a more up-to-date version of the license, but it hasn't yet been determined how best to do it. -- Ryan 21:57, 13 March 2006 (EST)
Actually I think it has to be CC-by-sa. The by licenses have a "under the same terms" clause which appears to make them incompatible with any other license. -- Mark 01:01, 14 March 2006 (EST)
Evan has espoused the notion that any cc-bysa can be relicensed as 1.0. I'm very uncomfortable with this suggestion. -- Colin 02:38, 14 March 2006 (EST)
OK, I've read that now, and a bunch of stuff on the creative commons mailing lists. It's pretty clear to me that the intention of the license is for CC-by to be compatible with CC-by-sa. This is to say that a re-distributor under a by-sa license is guaranteed to be abiding by the by license, since the attribution language is included in the by-sa.
Evan has spent a lot of time arguing these issues on the various CC lists, so I tend to differ to his judgement here anyhow. -- Mark 03:27, 14 March 2006 (EST)
I'm much more comfortable now knowing that Evan discussed it on those lists. Thanks. -- Colin 12:22, 14 March 2006 (EST)
It's a sticky issue, but I think that if we mark works as Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 or above, and if they don't include any of the more creative attribution options in the later licenses, then they should be OK for including into a by-sa 1.0 work. Since the terms of the Attribution license are a subset of the terms of the Attribution-ShareAlike, and the Attribution license doesn't preclude adding other terms onto the license for derivative/collective works, it seems OK. --09:10, 14 March 2006 (EST)
So... can we just kick everything up to 2.5 then? -- Colin 12:25, 14 March 2006 (EST)

CC 2.5 and "copyrighted free use" images[edit]

I've recently discovered a truckload of pretty Singapore pics, but many are licensed either as CC by-sa 2.5 or the rather bizarre "copyrighted free use" almost-PD-but-not-quite license. Any opinions on whether these are suitable for reuploading to Wikitravel Shared? I gather the sitewide upgrade to CC by-sa 2.5 is a matter of time, so these should be OK if properly tagged (?), but how about the other one? AFAIK it means the picture can be used for absolutely anything but the author wants to retain his ownership rights, so you can use it for as background for kiddie porn as long as it says "(C) Herb Ert" in the small print. This seems fairly CC by-sa compatible in spirit to me...? Jpatokal 23:57, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

Initial section[edit]

So, I took out the initial section that Ryan added. I understand the principle of getting copyright details up front, but I felt like the procedural tone wasn't very inviting. I've tried to integrate the key points into the lede, and I've put some of the other stuff into later parts of the article. --Evan 16:12, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

One request then - this page and the Wikitravel:Copyright details page appear to be the only two pages that specifically deal with what content can and cannot be used on Wikitravel. The Wikitravel:Copyleft page is frequently cited in welcome messages with the note "please make sure you understand our copyleft", and it also seems like the most likely place to point users to in the case of possible copyvios. The inviting text is nice, but it would also be good if there was a quick section that answered the question of "how can I make sure my contribution is acceptable". It seems unrealistic to believe that someone who didn't read the image warnings on the image upload page will carefully comb through sixteen paragraphs to get a specific answer to that question.
Rather than re-adding the quick overview section that was earlier reverted, would it be acceptable to at least add a "Frequently asked questions" section to the bottom of this page? That could include items like:
  • How do I use an image from another site on Wikitravel?
  • How can I use my own images on Wikitravel?
  • How do I use text from another site on Wikitravel?
  • Why can't GFDL text be used on Wikitravel?
Granted, this would mostly just re-hash the information in the paragraphs above, but it would provide a quick reference for those who aren't likely to read the entire page. -- Ryan 16:59, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
I buy that. How about a separate Wikitravel:Copyleft FAQ? --Evan 19:10, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
I added a few FAQ items, please add others, modify, and/or move to a different page if you think that's appropriate. Since this section is currently rather short I'd be in favor of keeping it all on one page, just so that all of the information is in one place, but if the list gets long then it should most definitely move to its own page. -- Ryan 19:57, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

Claiming my input[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

I just created an entry for Avebury, and being conceited, think it's pretty snazzy, but somehow it lost my id somewhere along the line, so I'm not attributed in the history.. any way of 'reclaiming' an article in the history log ? If someone wnats to argue with me, I'd rather they didn't argue with an IP address! --TheBigYin

Since there's no such thing as an articles that's finished, just make sure you're logged in from now on, and put a note in the next edit summary that you're "". Credit will thus be duly given. - Todd VerBeek 12:06, 6 April 2006 (EDT)
Just FYI, I've been having the same problem lately, on three different computers! (Even after I'm logged in, and my preferences are displayed along the top, it still saves the changes under my IP address.) Thanks for the advice; I'll do the same. -- Haem85 02:53, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
MediaWiki 1.6.x seems to be a lot more aggressive in expiring people's login cookies, and that's caused some bad interactions with our javascript-and-html caching system. An easy work around is to log in with the "remember me" flag set, if you can do that. --Evan 07:28, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
Doesn't seem to help, at least not for me. -- Mark 09:14, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
Ditto. At least the new login page cooperates with Firefox's auto-fill capability, making re-logins less of a hassle. - Todd VerBeek 10:23, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
No, it didn't help for me either. When I first went to the site and had to re-login, I checked the box again, and it still logged me back out. Oh well! -- Haem85 00:14, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
I've done considerable looking and searching, but can not see how one eventually gets credit at the bottom of an article. So far, it's not happening for me. OldPine 22:58, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
Credit should be automatic. If I look at the Cape Cod article, the line at the bottom of the page reads "This page was last modified 22:58, 16 June 2006 by David", so you appear to have been credited. The way the software works is that the last person to modify a page is listed as the "last modified" user, and everyone else who has made a change is listed under the "Wikitravel users" credits block. It's not perfect - if I'm 99% responsible for an article I get no more credit than someone who simply fixed a comma - but that's hopefully not a huge issue since there isn't much glory to be gained from Wikitravel contributions :) -- Ryan 23:04, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
Ah, I see. The format appears me such that one looks to get better credited by not being the last editor. Last guy merely made a modification. Previous editors did "work". As you point out, no biggie. I guess. I can always hype myself on my user page if I want glory. Muahahahaha :) OldPine 23:20, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Replacing nutcase, freakazoid[edit]

Perhaps it's better to replace the above words with a single word: person. It's better to use a generally used legal term and easier to translate to other languages. It's also easier for decision maker to agree with the license. With the old terms, their lawyer had to open dictionaries/search on the web for the exact translation of each word (ie freakazoid).

I have to disagree. Even though it may be considered impolite to call a bunch of morons "freakazoids" it gives a rather boring page flare. -- User:Sapphire
I think the intent here is to show people the spirit of the license. It's important that people know that they're not just sharing with the "right" kind of person -- they're sharing with everybody, even very dumb, crazy or bad people. --Evan 00:35, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
When members of parliament/law experts wrote a law, they assume that most "people" are sane, understand the law and understand the consequence if they violate the law. Only a small percentage of people in the general society are trully dumb/mentally retarded or trully insane/mentally ill.
The contributor's lawyer understands that small percentage of people that pirated their client's pictures are really dumb and mentally retarded people, but those dumb pirates can be prosecuted. However the lawyer also understands that it is impossible to prosecute insane/mentally ill people who pirated their client's pictures. Therefore it is better to use the word "people" without mentioning nutcase etc.
I don't think that page is aimed at lawyers anyway. The traveller comes first and we want them to get a clear picture of an issue that could otherwise sound too boring. Lawyers at work should be happy enough with this. By the way, in most legal systems the mentally ill can be prosecuted, they only get a different kind of "punishment". -- Ricardo (Rmx) 16:53, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Upload options for licenses[edit]

I'd like to remove the other options for image licenses from the drop down menu on the upload page. Currently, even uploading an image under CC-by-SA 2.0 is incompatible with our copyleft so we shouldn't give anyone the option of uploading an image under 2.0 or 2.5. I'd like to leave the 1.0, 1.0 and any later, and dual options. This has apparently caused some confusion about what can be uploaded to Wikitravel [1]. -- Sapphire 17:24, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

Evan is of the opinion that all versions of CC-bySA are compatible with each other. *ducks and runs* -- Colin 19:06, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
Ducks and runs? Is that an accurate opinion? It seems we've got two camps [2]. (Look at the first couple of entries). -- Sapphire 19:29, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
<< /me throws tomatoes at Colin's retreating back >> Incorrect assessment. I don't think the 2.x licenses are compatible with the 1.0 license, but I think we're going to eventually upgrade our license to by-sa 2.x or 3.0, so I'm not sure there's much point in being dogmatic about keeping out by-sa licensed works that are later than 1.0. I do think that the Attribution (not Attribution-ShareAlike!) 1.0 and above are compatible with by-sa 1.0, as long as the licensor hasn't added any extra requirements, like group attribution, that only occur with the later licenses. --Evan 20:04, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
Some kind of project-page documentation of what's okay would be nice. And when life gives you tomatos, it's marinara sauce time! -- Colin 19:10, 18 September 2006 (EDT)


Swept in from Wikitravel:Travellers' pubHypatia 19:05, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

Thought I'd let folks know that Copyscape [3] is a useful tool to track copyvios - both ways. — Ravikiran 14:59, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

National Park Service Copyright Notice[edit]

Thought I'd found the ideal map in the public domain, but then I noticed the copyright. Just an err or a right they can assert? OldPine 19:11, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

For the most part the NPS maps are public domain, however, they occasionally use images and maps from private photographers/cartographers, which are copyrighted. Kind of sucks for us, but an email or phone call can usually provide good results. -- Sapphire 20:09, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
If it was from an outside photog/cartog it would have their copyright on it. This appears to have the copyright of a gov't agency on it, which is just wrong. I'd guess the agency didn't know what it was doing and blindly slapped a copyright on it. But it would be nice to email the NPS to clear it up before uploading it here. -- Colin 20:21, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
Be careful. It is only works produced by a federal employee in the course of his or her official duties that are not entitled to copyright. The US Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights that are transferred to it by assignment or any other means. Since NPS and other agencies frequently put work out to contract, it is entirely possible that the NPS legitimately holds copyright to the image.SHC 06:48, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

JensANDMarian VFD discussion[edit]

There was an extremely lengthy and heated "discussion" (I'll use the polite term) lately on Wikitravel:Votes for deletion pertaining to some material that a contributor had submitted, but subsequently wished to have removed. A number of things arose in that discussion that bear thinking about, but in the interest of cleaning up the VfD page, it all needs to get archived somewhere, so I'm taking the liberty of moving the discussion here. If anyone can think of a better place to continue the debate, please suggest it, and move the material if appropriate. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Pictures from User JensANDMarian[edit]

Please delete all pictures listed below. I uploaded all these Images and I am the sole copyright holder of all pictures. I uploaded these pictures to further the development of Wikitravel. However, since the Wikitravel domain (including its content) was sold and became an commercial site itself I am not willing to grant you the use of my work. JensANDMarian

  • Keep. Please reread the license you consented to and try to understand it. The license has always allowed commercial users to copy stuff from us and publish it -- just check out the list of other sites who are already reusing it for commercial purposes. Did you know that Wikipedia allows it too? Did you know that Wikipedia has never promised you they will not add ads to their web pages in the future? Also, it is not true that the "content was sold." The copyright for each piece of work you have ever contributed still belongs to you even though you cannot change the terms. Did you know that the new hosting company for wikitravel cannot ever change the terms for your uploads? Your uploads will always be free for anyone to copy. Anyone who wants will be free to copy EVERYTHING from Wikitravel and make their own site -- they always have been allowed, and always will be. So explain this to me again. If the terms for reusing material from Wikitravel are going to remain the same as they always have been, what is so darn evil about letting a commercial company pay for hosting our website? -- Colin 17:42, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Any non-inuse images are okay with me to delete. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • All photos which were meant for your user page (and contain images of people) are okay with me to delete. -- Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE. The work was posted on WT in good faith at a time that WT was a "Wiki", but not owned by Since I am the copyright holder of the pictures I am entitled to refuse you the rigths to use these pictures, because you did not tell me the whole story about commercialising WT in first place.
  • The reasons why I decided to disallow WT the use of my pictures is the conflict of interest of a commercial entity as and a travelguide.
  • Well on the other side my contributions are minor and do you think you are doing the reputation of Wikitravel a favour by retaining work on the server when the originator does not give his consent.
  • Colin , I can't comment on the future directions of Wikipedia, but as far as I can see Wikipedia resisted the tempation of going commercial for quiet a while and they retain a lively community supporting WP with donations and free work.
  • JensANDMarian 19:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Good thing Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business and could finance something philanthropic. Of course, he has started a business to make money off this whole Wiki thing. It's just the encyclopedia which is philanthropic. Wikitravel lacked that sort of luck. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Colin: Can't comment if this is true or not, but your claim seems weird to me and it is off topic as well. I would appreciate if you could provide me with a link that Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business. I have to say that your arguments are silly (unless you provide a link to a credible source). JensANDMarian 20:24, 6 January 2007 (EST)
      • See WikiPedia:Jimmy Wales. You are correct that the nature of his finances is offtopic. The only on-topic part is that he could afford to finance it. -- Colin 20:47, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. This seems like an issue of courtesy, rather than legality, since legally it's clear that these images are being used in accordance with the CC-SA license that they were released under. While legally the images can be used here, I think it sets a bad precedent if a user who contributed content and then later asks that the content be removed is not allowed to do so - people add content here in good faith, and I think we should respect requests to remove that content if desired. However, JensANDMarian needs to understand that he has licensed his images under the CC-SA, they have been made available on the web, and if they appear elsewhere, even on a commercial site, he no longer has the legal right to retroactively change the licensing. -- Ryan 19:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • What of the mirrors and the fork? Is he going to eliminate the images from them too? If he doesn't, then we can just copy his stuff right back from the Mirrors (or someone might). I really don't want to set this kind of precedent. I'm okay with deleting any images not in use. I'm okay with someone who misunderstands and changes their mind shortly after uploading. But years later? At the very least, if we're going to delete them then I want a commitment from JensANDMarian that he is going to ask each and every Mirror to remove them. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Colin thank you very much for very thougtful comments. I will try to eliminate pictures that have been uploaded by other sides and I hope you (Colin) and Evan will assist me in doing so. Re-loading of images from other sites that have been deleted on WT is very naughty, because you have been told off and your are not entitled to use them anymore.

Thank you very much for your future co-operation. JensANDMarian 20:44, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Check out Wikitravel:Mirrors which lists the mirrors we are aware of. Since your username is pretty unique, Googling for "JensANDMarian" results in nearly a thousand hits most of which are presumably related to your contributions (the number of sites will be less, of course) and may give you an idea of the scope of what you are asking. Lastly, we are not in the habit of verifying the lack of naughtiness of our users, so it's entirely conceivable that some innocent user will find your images on a different site, note that the license is appropriate for copying back to Wikitravel, and will copy it. -- Colin 20:54, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Just to add another comment here, I'm in favor of deleting Jen's images that are currently on Wikitravel, but I'm COMPLETELY opposed to policing Wikitravel, the mirrors, or anywhere else to make sure these images aren't re-uploaded: Jens, you released them under the CC-SA, and they are on the web and available for anyone to use them under that license. In the future, if someone re-uploads one of your images here after grabbing it from another site, that's definitely not "naughty", that's legal under the terms of the license that YOU agreed to. Second, I don't expect Colin, Evan or anyone else to assist in deleting these images from anywhere other than Wikitravel - assuming other sites are providing attribution, they are using the images legally. Jens, again, if you want them deleted it's up to you to track down the images, and it's also up to you to convince site owners to delete content that they are legally using. -- Ryan 21:02, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Agree completely with Ryan. Deleting an image when requested by the person who uploaded the image is common courtesy, and we do it all the time, although usually for other reasons. But re-use of images elsewhere is explicitly allowed under CC-SA, and the genie is out of the bottle. Not only is it not our problem, it is by definition not a problem. Meanwhile, JensANDMarian, I hope that you'll take Evan up on his call for dialogue below. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I notice the images are also in use on de:. Whose job is it to tell the German Wikitravellers? -- Colin 21:12, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Abstain. JensANDMarian, under the license you used when you released the work, everybody -- including Wikitravel -- is allowed to use your work forever. Once you have given that permission, it cannot be revoked (per section 7b, Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).) That all said, if you're really sure that you want them removed, I think everyone would rather remove them than have a big problem with a longtime member of the community like you. Your contributions have been much appreciated and I'd be sad to see your very nice photographs go. However, I'd prefer that we actually talked about the issues that seem to have you upset, rather than taking this step. You've done a good thing sharing your work with the world, and I'd hate for that generous gesture to go to waste. Please talk to me on my talk page, User talk:Evan, if you have some questions, comments, or issues you'd like to discuss. --Evan 21:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. VfD is not the right way to go about this: the images are fully CC-by-sa compliant. Jpatokal 23:59, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. As others have said, the license does not allow for the retraction of rights. With the exception of Image:DSC01650.jpg, which seems to violate Wikitravel:Image_policy#People_in_photos. For that, I vote Delete. -- Jonboy 02:19, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • He seems to mean all his pictures, which can be found through this link. JensANDMarian, can you please check that link and clarify if you mean to nominate all the other ones too? A number of his images were meant for his user page. -- Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete, but keep if somebody copies them back in from one of the mirrors, especially if they come from Wikivoyage. I'm seriously confused as to why people who are unable to see that having IB own the right to host the site has changed exactly nothing, however it harms us not the least to comply with this request. Meanwhile the funny thing is that Lonely Planet and Microsoft still have Jens' and Maria's express permission to use the images, but not us. -- Mark 03:13, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Mark, other sites that use for example the KNP article from Wikitravel have done simply done a copy paste job. Once they update their Wikitravel article they will display the latest version of the Wikitravel article and if my images have been deleted they will put an update without those images on their servers. Therefore is it only a matter of time till all my images are removed from WT and sites that use articles and pictures from Wikitravel. Obviously, it will take some time till the last webpage gets updated, but it will eventually happen. JensANDMarian 10:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Free Content is what we're talking about here. You released your images under a Free license, and now that somebody you've never think you might not like owns the servers that those images are hosting you want to try to take that license back. I wish you would open your eyes to the simple fact that what you are doing is no different from say Caldera which released the Linux kernel under the GPL for years, and then suddenly changed their name to SCO and started a law suit and a nasty press campaign against big bad nasty old IBM for having -- "on no!" --- used the same license. You don't seem to understand this, but you are behaving exactly the same way.
I would, as many others here have, ask you to please read the license. I've been involved in Free Software (logiciels libre) for some time now, and am nearly militant about it. What I see happening here is that some guy who is a relative newcomer is out there running a disinformation campaign about one of the founders of this website, Evan.
So what's mine is yours, but what's yours is only for you if you change your mind because of something which as far as I can tell does not effect our relationship a tiny little bit. That's the thing, you still don't seem to understand. IB may own the servers this site runs on, and may own the trademark to the name, but you and I and the others still own the content, and we always have.
So, I suppose that there are scads of my work showing up in a certain other project, and you know what: That's tough, but the license is the license is the license. You are free to use my work wherever you like because I understand that the stand I took for Free Content is the stand I meant to take. -- Mark 09:58, 9 January 2007 (EST)
You realy seem to be prettymilitant, but not neccessarily for freedom. We still expect your apology. -- Hansm 04:18, 14 January 2007 (EST)
For what? For pointing out to Wikivoyagers that you are behaving badly in other forums? For asking you to apologise to evan? For making you look like the jerk that you are? -- Mark 11:59, 17 January 2007 (EST)
  • I'm abstaining from this vote, for now, but I have a question for everyone that's voting delete out of courtesy. Hypothetically, if I get all pissed off at you guys (especially Mr. Prodromou - I might as well join the bandwagon) for not telling me the domain and servers are owned by IB, or because IB starts advertising with the annoying blinking ads saying I was the 10,000,000th million visitor and won some non-existent Playstation 3, and I demand all the photos I own the copyright to be removed from the WT sites do you extend the courtesy? What if I demand that you delete every single contribution I made? I'm worried that we're becoming a little too courteous. In the past couple of months we've become increasingly accommodating, so much so I can't tell where we draw the lines between being reasonable and trying to protect people from their inability to read the By clicking "Save" below, you acknowledge that you agree to the site license as well as the following: line. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:54, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Here's my opinion, others probably feel differently. There seem to be a lot of jobs that come up around here where some people say "I don't want to do it, but if someone else is willing to do it then I don't care if they do" (Special:Contributions/ comes to mind...), and generally someone else is willing to do the job. In this case I don't mind tracking down Jens' images and deleting them from the site, and since he's asked us to do so it seems like the courteous thing to do. If 10 people a week were asking us to remove their images, or if someone who had contributed hundreds of images was doing so, my willingness to accommodate them would be considerably less, especially since we have numerous notices about the site's licensing. However, I also think that if we had 10 people a week asking for their contributions to be removed then we'd be talking about how to make people better understand the license, rather than whether to extend a courtesy to someone who should have read the license but didn't. -- Ryan 04:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Question for JensANDMarian: it appears that you are working on WikiVoyage, which is no doubt a fine project. But if you are uploading images there, then you are once again giving us rights to your images (you have read the license by now, right?). So do you plan on asking WikiVoyage to remove your images? -- Colin 15:17, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • WV is an separate issue and I have to discuss this with Hansm on the German site. JensANDMarian 10:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)
    • Jens, both sites are under the CC-SA license, so it is not a separate issue. Either you want to release your content under the CC-SA or you do not. You cannot make contributions to WikiVoyage and then request that those contributions not be used on Wikitravel - read Wikitravel:Copyleft and the text of the CC-SA license. The issue is whether or not you want your content under the CC-SA or not; if you do not, I vote to delete the images you've specified. If you DO want your content released under the CC-SA but do not want it used on Wikitravel then you are adding additional restrictions to the CC-SA license, which is not allowed, and therefore I would say we should keep your contributions on the site. -- Ryan 11:05, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Ryan thanks for your contributions in this discussion you raised some good points there. I will approach other websites that host my pictures and ask them to take off their website to prevent any confusion in that matter. But obviously I have to approach them individually and it will take a while till last user of this pictures is informed.

JensANDMarian 06:04, 9 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete This is courtest as someone has already said. Many people supported Wikitravel because it was part of a non-profit company. Now it's not and lots of people, especially outside of the USA, have a BIG problem with this. We see information as being a resource which has no price and shouldn't be used for commercial gain. I'm sure that technically, if we wanted to be bastards, we could just grab the pictures again from another website but that would just be stupid. Xania 18:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Please re-read Wikitravel:Copyleft and the text of the CC-SA license. As Mark stated above, whether Wikitravel is commercial or not has absolutely no relevance - if someone releases content under the CC-SA license, it can (and probably will) be used anywhere, by anyone, provided they follow the terms of the license. Commercial sites, for-profit institutions, and unscrupulous individuals looking to make a quick buck have just as much right to the content as those without any commercial interest at all. I believe that it's a courtesy to remove someone's content if they request us to do so, but that content shouldn't have been released under the CC-SA license in the first place if the creator was unwilling to allow others to use it commercially. -- Ryan 18:35, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Xania, Why and how would it be stupid to use materials which are published under a license allowing us to use them? Do you think I get paid to work on Wikitravel? Do you think I'm in the USA? I'm not, but isn't that off-topic?
    • Why don't you go and talk to some repected people in Free Software in Europe about what they think about people trying to get out of a Free Software license after they've published some work under it? I know a few folks I can send you to.
    • For some reason somebody out there is unfairly branding our project as being somehow less than Free, and for some reason some people seem to be believing that. For some reason people are conflating non-profit with Free content. I think these people are just not paying attention. As far as I can tell the fact that several other sites exist which are based on this content prooves that Wikitravel is still a project to create a Free travel guide. -- Mark 10:48, 9 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep all except for Image:DSC01650.jpg and user images. Deleting them would be to acknowledge the accusations that "the originator does not give his consent" (he did, but changed his mind later) and that we did not tell "the whole story about commercialising" - the copyleft and the cc-by-sa-1.0 license are pretty straightforward about telling contributors that their stuff "can be used for commercial ventures, advertisements, or other purposes (with some restrictions -- see privacy rights and publicity rights) without your direct control". It's not about being courteous or bastards~: Jen and Marian must learn to live with the fact that once the pictures were uploaded, they are no longer free to revoke the freedom they gave to others. By the way, Image:Elephant Walking.JPG and Image:Lion Walking.JPG were uploaded by Jpatokal, so why are they listed there too? -- Ricardo (Rmx) 21:25, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • I've removed the two images you pointed out from the list. -- Ryan 21:38, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep Courtesy goes both ways. I haven't seen much from the person requesting deletion. Also, I'm perplexed why someone would claim Wikitravel is a "commercial" site. There is no chare or fee to use Wikitravel, and no advertising on the site (in fact, adverts are specifically banned from the pages). So there is nothing being "commercialized" here. The ownership structure of the backers of Wikitravel is basically irrelevant. SONORAMA 00:05, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • SONORAMA: This is from the press release after Internetbrands acquired Wikitravel (please note that I uploaded my pictures at a time that the Wikitravel domain was owned by Evan and there was no obviouse talk that WT would go down that route that it went. At leaset I did not see it coming)

Business Model

Internet Brands recognizes that even the prospect of commercialization of some community driven sites, such as, has produced controversy among community members. Internet Brands believes the goals of the community can be facilitated and enhanced by thoughtful monetization strategies. For example, numerous wiki sites currently carry non-obtrusive, cost-per-click advertising in order to fund operating costs and future development.

The current Wikitravel site has no advertising, while has two types of monetization: Google adwords and link revenues from a hotel-booking partner. Over time and with community input, Internet Brands will consider context-relevant commercial links that would be consistent with the project's goals and that would enhance the overall utility of the site to users.

"The executives at Internet Brands have extensive publishing experience in protecting editorial integrity in online and offline environments," said Brisco. "The best of the traditional media, such as the leading newspapers, have successfully balanced protecting editorial integrity and accepting advertising for decades. With these two travel communities, we will look to Evan and Michele to continue to supervise the development of community editorial policies," said Brisco.

For your informations the full press relase can be found here: [}

JensANDMarian 07:18, 9 January 2007 (EST)

    • For what it's worth, you should eventually expect Google Ads or similar stuff to appear alongside the content. Gotta pay those hosting bills somehow! Other Wikis do this like the Star Trek wiki or Wiki Outdoors. -- Colin 00:25, 8 January 2007 (EST)
    • Don't forget WikiHow. Personally, I like how they handle their advertisements. If you're not logged in you'll see the ads, but if you are logged in you will not see the ads. That aside, this discussion isn't really about advertising, but deleting images. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:11, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep This is absurd. The photos were all released under the CC by SA 1.0 (and other licenses in some cases) and that has not changed. There is no way to put the lid on the box after they are released. You can only conform to the license. The time for decision was prior to uploading. You can not get mad and take your marbles and go home. The marbles no longer belong to you. I can understand that you do not like IB to own Wikitravel, but even they do not own the content! It is all released under CC by SA 1.0. Now, all of that said, I would not be against deleting any personal photos that are not being used in actual travel articles on Wikitravel. If you want to list those, I will delete them for you but the others are out of the box and will stay that way. And to be honest, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. It's a done deal. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 08:36, 9 January 2007 (EST)
  • This one is coming up on its 14 days, and while there are more "keep" than "delete" votes (as well as a couple of abstains) it doesn't quite meet the "consensus to keep" criteria. Does anyone else have any comments? -- Ryan 01:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think there is clear consensus to delete the images which are unused or which are only used on his user page.
    • I think it's tough from all the unanswered questions. You wrote "The issue is whether or not you want your content under the CC-SA or not; if you do not, I vote to delete the images you've specified". I suspect Jens might understand the cc-bysa by now, but he has not given any clear indication of this nor has he retracted his bogus "Since I am the copyright holder of the pictures I am entitled to refuse" even though he seems to want to contribute to the Fork. Jens also hasn't directly answered questions about whether he wants to contribute these to the fork or whether he meant to nominate his other images. Jens hasn't initiated the VfD process on German Wikitravel. All despite the fact that he's had plenty of time to write diatribes about the "commercialization" of Wikitravel whatever that is supposed to mean.
    • So at this point, in light of your understanding of whether or not Jens wants to comply with cc-bysa, what is your vote on this? FWIW, if Jens will say he wishes he never released under cc-bysa and wants his images removed from all cc-bysa sites, I'd be willing to switch to delete. -- Colin 13:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)
      • Given the comment from Jens "I will approach other websites that host my pictures and ask them to take off their website to prevent any confusion in that matter" I'm sticking with a delete vote. It's clear that we don't have to remove any content that has been released under the CC-SA, and there are strong arguments to be made that removing such content is against the spirit of the license (see Mark's SCO argument), but in this case I view it as a courtesy to Jens, who seems to have not understood the ramifications of the CC-SA when he originally uploaded his content. That said, should he upload photos to wikivoyage or any other CC-SA site (which he says he will not do), he has had his chance to claim ignorance of the license and I wouldn't have any opposition to using those pictures here. -- Ryan 22:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)
        • For what it's worth, even though I've argued very strenuously that we shouldn't worry about the images coming back from some other source that did vote to delete them in the first place. I still think that Jens doesn't understand the license, or for that matter the goals and non-goals of the project, or even its organisation. I really don't want to take advantage of his ignorance. -- Mark 17:47, 20 January 2007 (EST)
        • Ryan, Jens has not vfd'd his images on WikiVoyage and as far as I can tell they have not been deleted. Also, I do not see a clear consensus to delete the images, except those with that have his family in the photo and those used solely to illustrate his userpage. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:56, 20 January 2007 (EST)
I have asked Wikitravel to delete the picutures specified above, because I uploaded them onto your (WT) server. So far there is a ongoing discussion but the pics are still there. I will approach other sites once I have dealed with Wikitravel. I think that is fair!!!
So why do you expect that other sites such as WV and other mirrors delete my pictures in first place.
JensANDMarian 00:08, 21 January 2007 (EST
Can you please just make a clear statement that you didn't understand the license, and that you don't intend for these images to be licensed under the CC by-sa for the whole world? If you do that then I think everybody will agree to delete them. -- Mark 19:15, 20 January 2007 (EST)

  • Keep - as mentioned above, it's one thing to have not understood the license and bring it up soon after uploading, etc... but they don't want to "take their marbles and go home" they want to take their marbles over to another friend's house, it seems. Keep for all the reasons listed above too, over there their images will still be released under cc-by-sa and free to copy back here or elsewhere. And, as said above, it sets a really bad precedent - what happens when the next person wants to remove all their images? Luckily it doesn't happen often, but if more heavy contributors strip away this many pictures then it's damaging to too many pages. The users don't seem to fear what will happen with their images as much as they seem to want to just get even (and as explained above, there's nothing to get even with, and no concrete reason to want to). But yes, delete the personal ones that were meant for their userpage. Cacahuate 02:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Here's my proposal to Jens: OK the situation regarding WT ownership changed after you offered your photographs. However, try to understand that this was not some clandestine operation where people were originally lured under false pretenses to offer photographs and articles for free with the aim of capitalizing on them later. It was just the way the operation flowed at that time. However, I can understand that you are not happy that the community to which you originally offered your work changed into a more commercial venture. I think many people felt the same and are watching the situation closely. However, try to understand that it was not a deliberate move to cheat you or others. It was just part of a WT's ongoing development. So, my suggestion to you is that perhaps you could exercise a little generosity and flexibility in the matter. OK, you don't like the way that things changed after you made your contributions, but to save the hassle of removing the photographs and avoid the potential for creating bad feeling, why don't you just leave the photographs that have already been uploaded (barring those that are on your personal page), but refrain from offering others in the future. As I think you will appreciate, deleting your photographs would create a precedent that would be difficult to maintain. You do have a valid point. There is no denying that, but so does the WT community, and I hope that you can also appreciate that. So, to reiterate, I suggest that you register your disapproval of the ways things turned out, but to save a lot of hassle just leave the photographs that you have already been uploaded as they are, but refrain from offering more in the future (unless of course you change your feelings about the domain ownership). Anyway, that's just my suggestion. You are of course free to continue whichever course of action you wish. Take it easy. WindHorse 06:44, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Windhorse, I understand your underlying intentions with the preceding comments, but I do take issue with one line: "the community to which you originally offered your work changed into a more commercial venture." The community is not a commercial venture, only the domain and site are. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:56, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Windhorse, I think that was one of the best comments I have seen regardind this issue. God bless you. JensANDMArian 23:12 , 20 January
Well if you like his comment can you live with his proposal? -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:54, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • We've reached the end of the normal VFD discussion period for this, and I believe the consensus (to the extent that there is one) is not to delete these. However, there may be value in letting the discussion go on, maybe at Wikitravel talk:Copyleft. I propose to move this enormous thing to that page and get on with it. Going once, going twice ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:45, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Jens: Greetings - thanks for your feedback. Anyway, I hope that you will consider this option and if you do decide to depart WT, then you/we do so with deeper understanding of each others points of view and as friends. However, as I said earlier, you must decide your own course of action. This is only a suggestion. Sapphire: I'm sorry. I used the wrong expression. I was thinking of a village, where a community implies the structures as well as its members - which by strict definition is incorrect. Mea Culpa. WindHorse 01:16, 21 January 2007 (EST)
No problem. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)

The copyleft[edit]

I just want to get a few things straight. I haven't quite figured out why JensANDMartin is refering to WT as a commercial site, simply because it has been acquired by IB.

  • Is the whole site owned by IB, or simply the logo? In my limited knowledge, licensing the site's content by CCSA means that all of it is free info and can be re-published/re-used/printed and distributed as per the terms of CCSA.
  • If I come across a Public Domain image on MediaWiki Commons, am I allowed to select the CCSA 1.0 license while uploading it to WT?
  • If I upload a photo of myself on WT, will others retain the right to it under CCSA?

Please reply on my user page, Upamanyuwikitravel( Talk )( Travel ) • 08:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

JensANDMarian were confused and felt betrayed. They were also had by misinformation too, which led to a misunderstanding of what the project was and still is.
The domain, the servers, and the trademark (The name Wikitrvel) is owned by Internet Brands. The logo is licensed under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license and was made by Mark Jaroski. You may use the logo, as you please, provided you abide by the CC-by-SA 1.0 license and you not misrepresent your use of the Wikitravel trademark.
I'm not sure. It'd be very unethical to do so. If you make changes to the image, then upload those changes I think it's fair game to license your changes under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license.
Yes, by uploading your image to Wikitravel you are agreeing to license it under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, which permits anyone to alter or redistribute it.
I'm not going to reply on your talk page because in the event others have the same questions the information should be easily accessible to everyone. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 08:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, isn't the 3rd a little unsafe? I wouldn't want someone to track me down using that image... (Isn't there something about people in photos, the policy isn't too clear about that Upamanyuwikitravel( Talk )( Travel ) • 11:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow photos of people in the travel articles because it might violate their privacy rights. If you choose to upload a photo of yourself for your User page, that's not a privacy violation, because you did it yourself. Whether it's unsafe or not... That's not something I would worry about, but that's a personal judgment. In your particular case (because of your age), you may want to ask your parents' opinion. - Todd VerBeek 12:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, question about the trademark: I have been using the trademark on the various maps I've made, but I have licensed my maps as public domain. I would really rather keep the maps public domain—should I remove the trademarks? Or maybe just keep the svg files PD sans the trademark? --Peterfitzgerald Talk 14:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, actually leave the question of the trademark, aside. Since the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 you're technically required to license everything under CC-by-SA 1.0 since Mark did create that image. I doubt Internet Brands is going to go after community members since they really are quite fond of us.
I'm somewhat confused about the images actual licensing since Mark didn't clarify it, but I'll send him an email.
This is a pain-in-the-ass, but in preparing this response I remembered that a lot of people have put work into the various templates that maps are based on and we should attribute them. Anyone know of an easy way to do that? -- Sapphire(Talk) • 16:40, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, the best way to take care of such a problem would be for the template wizards to kindly release their work into the PD for make benefit of glorious nation of Wikitravellers etc... Since I have been just doing region maps, I haven't used the templates much, but I'm thinking that the "easiest" way to credit the templateers would be to insert an additional credit into the source section of the image credit template. That and make the license compatible with the template (cc-by-sa 1.0 I think). [Sigh], the more work I do with images and maps on this site, the more I realize what a wonderful world it would be if more people would just forgo the whole "credit" thing and release their work as PD. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I have no problem releasing my work on Image:Wikitravel-map-template.svg to the public domain, we will however need to get Jani and all the creators of Wikitravel:Common map symbols to do the same. If that prove to be too difficult, maybe we should use what we can get into the PD and simply redesign the rest. It's not that big a job to build up a new collection of common map symbols and to put a map template together. If we can do that, then I will also release all future maps I create based on the new template as PD. --NJR_ZA 02:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Come tho think about it, I am in violation of CC-by-SA 1.0 by not attributing the Wikitravel:Common map symbols in the Image:Wikitravel-map-template.svg, I'll start fixing that, it will also then be easier to identify who we need to talk to to get this into PD --NJR_ZA 02:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, at first glance I didn't think anything of it, then the way Peter worded one sentence made me think about it. Since you're more entrenched in map making could I ask you to make a list of the various authors of images we've used? At least then we can go back and attribute other people, if we can't get it into PD. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 03:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Most of the map symbols are from PD sources or derivations thereof. If anyone's going through them to check licensing/credit, I hereby re-release any that went through my hands into the Public Domain. - Todd VerBeek 09:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, this does not look to bad. Todd, I have changed licensing on one of your symbols to PD as I did not see any license on it. Other than that we only have the following:

I will drop Paul and Mark a message and see if we can get those under PD --NJR_ZA 11:18, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Anything which is uploaded to this site, and not explicitly released under a more permissive license is CC by-sa v. 1.0. There is no such thing as content on Wikitravel with "no license". -- Mark 11:35, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Very true, I should have stated it better. Those just does not contain any explicit license statement and will fall under the default CC-by-SA 1.0 --NJR_ZA 11:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Er, from now on I'll release all my own images as PD. Upamanyuwikitravel( Talk )( Travel ) • 13:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
There's no reason to do that for all images. It's just easier for the maps if the symbols used in them are PD. - Todd VerBeek 14:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so I've created a standard Imagecredit template, from Ravi's. I'm going to start copying and pasting the template and we'll need to do the same. Feel free to use the template, as needed. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 15:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
{{Imagecredit |credit=Map created by Foo, based on work from [[:en:User:NJR_ZA|Nick Roux]], [[:en:User:TVerBeek|Todd VerBeek]], [[:en:User:Mark|Mark Jaroski]], [[:en:User:Jpatokal|Jani Patokallio]], and [[:en:User:Paul.|Paul Louis]]. |source=Foo |location=Foo |caption=Map of Foo. |description=Description of map of Foo.}}
I've just taken the time to read the whole thread, and I guess I can say that now I sort of understand where folks are coming from with this notion that PD is better for the maps. Respectfully I still dissagree. I think the by-sa is just about perfect. That said I'm a lot more interested in the sa clause than I am in the by clause. So, I am willing to consider re-licensing in a pure Share-alike license if that makes things easier. -- Mark 17:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
No, not the maps. Just the symbols used by others when making maps. If a map symbol is just cc-bysa, then any map derived with the symbol cannot be GFDL or any other license. Since the logo is used on many maps, it's a problem too. -- Colin 18:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
If all the symbols (except the logo) are PD, they can used at will without worrying about which ones were used on which map and who gets credit for them. (Because really: why should I get credit over and over for tweaking PD symbols of a park ranger and a ferry?) But as soon as the non-PD Wikitravel logo is applied, the combined work must be CC-by-SA, and that's the license the maps would be published under, giving credit to Mark and to whomever assembled or modified that map. - Todd VerBeek 18:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
To clarify, for maps using the logo, will I need to simply relicense them as cc-by-sa? Or is it necessary to explicitly credit the logo creator as well? My plan is to relicense my jpg map images as cc-by-sa, but to keep my svg files PD by removing the logo. I would encourage others to do the same so that future derivative works don't get held up for some odd, unintended reason. Countless times already I have had to do tedious busy work because of copyleft issues with GDFL images, for which the authors probably would have been glad to see derivative works used for Wikitravel. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 18:56, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I have created a new template Image:Wikitravel-map-template-PD.svg that is based only on PD work. It will make life a lot simpler by totally avoiding licensing issues. The only drawbacks are that some of the symbols now used do not match Wikitravel:Common map symbols and that it does not contain the logo. The logo does not bother me much as every article page already shows the logo on the top of the page, there is really no need for it on every map. I'll start working through the maps I have already created and remove any CC by-sa infringements that I might have created. --NJR_ZA 10:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Because the logo is licensed only under CC-By-SA, any work that contains it must be licensed only under CC-By-SA, and Mark must be credited. Whether we want the published maps to have the logo is a trademark issue: if another site is simply mirroring our pages, the maps they get will have the logo. That's up to IB to decide, I think. - Todd VerBeek 16:51, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think probably you're going to want to get rid of the logo in re-distributed maps for trademark reasons anyhow, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Now, as to re-licensing: would my cross-licensing the symbols I've made as CC share-alike and GNU fdl accomplish what people are looking to accomplish? I don't really want to give up the copyleft lever here. -- Mark

shared:Image talk:Wikitravel-map-template.svg... any comments? – cacahuate talk 01:25, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I've actually got one more comment for this thread: It would be quite useful to be able to drop the attribution requirement, but keep the share-alike requirement for licensing. I would prefer to keep my content in the commons, if only to encourage the growth of free content generally. But attribution is a rather pointless headache I would prefer to spare anyone making derivative works based on, say, a map I made. So, if we can't find a license that would enable us to circumnavigate the attribution requirement, I will keep licensing my content as PD, but that's not really ideal. Are there other options? --Peter Talk 01:48, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
shared:Image talk:Wikitravel-map-template.svg comes up as blank for me. Is there supposed to be something there? JimDeLaHunt 14:35, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Whoops, the discussion is on :en — Image talk:Wikitravel-map-template.svg --Peter Talk 13:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Doubts about plagiarism[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

Any time I see a huge block of information written in an article, I assume there is a decent chance someone has cut and pasted it from somewhere, and I usually delete it or rewrite the information if I find it has been copied from Wikipedia or from an official government or primary business website. However, I'm finding large portions of some articles, Mexico for example, on more than one travel agency website (not Wikitravel mirrors), and I started wondering whether it was a Wikitravel contributor who copied from one of them, or if perhaps they copied it from Wikitravel and put their own copyright on it? How are we to know the difference and what are we to do about it? Texugo 02:34, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Not a single response? Texugo 05:14, 5 October 2006 (EDT)
The check for plagiarism has to be done immediately after the content is posted, otherwise things get difficult. (You can try to check when the page was last changed via your browser's "page info", but this is useless for any high-tech site with dynamic pages.) Of course, you could always try sending the potential offender a mail telling them to comply to license conditions and seeing what happens... Jpatokal 06:44, 5 October 2006 (EDT)
Agree with Jani. Not so much here, but on Wikipedia, I've had the experience of writing prose for an article, then doing a Google search on keywords (sometimes a few days later) that revealed that that same prose was showing up on copycat reference articles that aren't mirrors. If you can't check the timeline quickly and/or conclusively, you'll never be clear on who has lifted text from whom.
That said, most of the people who contribute here on a regular basis have certain quirks of style that identify their writing, despite the partial homogenization that the MoS imposes. There are parsing tools out there that can check for these quirks and assess the probability that a given piece of prose was written by a particular author whose quirks have been established. Just for grins, you might look into those and play with the texts that trouble you; let us know what you find. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 5 October 2006 (EDT)
Typically I look into the history of the text. If the text has been edited by different people at different times, but appears in more than one place as it appears in Wikitravel, odds are stronger that those other sites copied Wikitravel than that multiple contributors worked together to make an exact copy of some other site.
If you see a copy of Wikitravel guides that doesn't give credit to contributors and note the license, add it to Wikitravel:Non-compliant redistribution. Send an email notice to the site in question, too. --Evan 11:14, 5 October 2006 (EDT)


Archived from the Pub:


Can images at wikimedia commons be used at wikitravel. If so, how? --Soman 10:05, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

No, they can't. However, if (and only if!) the license is PD or CC by-sa, you can copy them over to shared:Wikitravel Shared, which is "our" version of Commons. Note that GFDL, fair use etc images are not allowed. Jpatokal 10:33, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Alternative license for photos for user pages?[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

I wonder how people would feel about different, more restrictive licensing for images that are only to appear on individual user pages. I have a few shots showing my ugly mug (maybe better left unshown, actually...) that I wouldn't mind using to illustrate my user page, which however I would prefer not be used for commercial purposes. There are other folks here whose portraits do appear on their user pages; do you feel the same discomfort as I do, or is my discomfort misplaced? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 16 December 2006 (EST)

I don't actually feel the same concern, and having had my photo on my user page for more than three years without (known) abuse, I'm not feeling any more concerned.
I wouldn't be absolutely worried if there were slightly less liberal licensing for some images on user pages, but I'd like to make sure that content that's in the guides themselves remains 100% mutually compatible. What we'd lose with this is a single, clear, simple set of rules for licensing content from this site; the main thing we'd gain is having more personal interaction.
One thing we've done with the new Crossroads site is had much more variable licensing -- from All Rights Reserved to Public Domain (although we favour licenses compatible with W66 and Wikitravel, of course). Since XR content doesn't really need to integrate that well, it doesn't seem like such a big issue. I wonder if you'd feel more comfortable building out your XR homepage and linking to it from your Wikitravel one? --Evan 22:14, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Copyrighted Geo data[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

I just realized that some websites have copyright notices on geo data and I guess this is relevant to other fields and data (i.e. climate data, which has caused some pain for getting data for non-US places for use with templates I worked on). I've always been under the impression that you can't copyright facts/data. I.e. if I used a website that is not free (in our sense) I can still copy and paste the data published, because they are facts. I.e. no one can deny that Zakopane (or at least a specific section of it) lies at Latitude Foo and Longitude Foo. Is it ok to use this info, since they are facts, or at least I hopefully consider them to be? -- Sapphire(Talk) • 17:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I know that some database vendors have claimed copyright on their collections of data, but individual bits of data - like long/lat coordinates for a location - are simple facts and cannot be copyrighted. - Todd VerBeek 10:59, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I think I can say with authority that you are correct in all the english speaking jursidictions, Todd. [Although in some jurisdictions an original layout or ordering or presentation can automatically acquire protection and, of course, API's such as Google's are protected in most jurisdictions...]
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 12:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Creative Commons 3.0[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

To everyone,

Creative Commons just launched the 3.0 versions. There are some interesting and, I think, better features about the overall 3.0 license. I.e. 3.0 licenses can be relicensed under other licenses with the same spirit. See Creative Commons by-ShareAlike 3.0 and the Creative Commons website for the nitty gritty. Once I read over everything I'll consider relicensing all of my contributions under possibly the 3.0 license, or something more recent. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 03:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Still retain copyright?[edit]

What does the following sentence mean?

You still retain the copyright over your own work, and you can use it any other way you want (even if it's not compatible with our license!).

I was under the impression that anything you contribute here is released into the commons, and you do not retain copyright. --Peter Talk 13:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Semi-incorrect. You do irreversibly license someone to use the content as specified by the relevant license, but because you still own the copyright/intellectual rights you can do anything you so please with the content you own the copyright/ir to. Ever read a software license that comes with computer software? They always explain you are not sold the copyright/ir to this software.... you are only licensed to use it as permitted by the terms of this End-user agreement.
I.e if I license a novel under CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 (or whatever version) no one may use my work to make a profit, however, since I own the copyright to the content I am permitted to use the copyright to print and sell the book for a profit, while no one else is permitted to. CC-by-SA 1.0 is more liberal so there are likely to be fewer scenarios, however, I'm sure there's a clause in the license that says 'all other rights are reserved by the copyright owner/author.' -- Sapphire(Talk) • 14:27, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Another example, when I created the template for attribution I waived the requirement for you to attribute me, but in theory anyone else would be required to attribute me since I own the copyright to template. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 14:34, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Right ho, a hair finely split! Thank you for the clarification; I do get it now. But I think explaining this distinction in Russian would require Babel-5 or so, so I think I'll just leave this sentence out of my translation ;). --Peter Talk 14:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
You do retain the copyright to work that you contribute to Wikitravel, but you agree to license it to us and everybody else in the world under the terms of the CC by-sa. This is a non-exclusive license which means that for works which are entirely your own, like the chicago maps for instance (the contribution of the Tiger-line data notwithstanding) you may at your choice grant somebody else different license terms.
In practice this doesn't really work for the text of Wikitravel since it's almost always collaborative, but it works for photos and maps, since they're more likely to be sole works. -- Mark 02:57, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
you may at your choice grant somebody else different license terms — but only more generous terms, correct? --Peter Talk 03:13, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Correct... you can't make it tighter once you've released it as cc-by whatever. But you could make it looser, or even still choose to go all the way and make it PD. – cacahuate talk 04:36, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Sure you can. You can license another release any way you please. Of course people will always have access to the CC-by-SA version as well — you cannot impose any restrictions on that — so a tightly licensed version might be hard to sell, but that does not mean you cannot try.
Examples abounded in the early days of microcomputing. US law said all federally funded work was automatically in the public domain but various students who wrote theses while getting federal grant money were still able to start companies based on it. The public domain Standford University Network (SUN) computer was a starting point for half a dozen manufacturers — Sun, Appollo, I forget the others.
Of course those companies would often take the public domain work, change a few lines and declare the result their proprietary "intellectual property". Stallman invented the FSF and GPL largely to stop people doing that. Modern Open Source licenses all forbid it. Anything under CC-by-SA is protected against that, unless people violate the license or it fails in court or whatever; anyway it is supposed to be protected.
When you release your work under CC-by-SA, you can also release it under any other license you choose. However, nobody else can take the CC-by-SA material and re-release it, or a derivative work, under some other license. Pashley 09:13, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

What about the compatibility of Wikitravel CC By-SA to FDL?[edit]

I've tried to read the discussions in this and similar pages on Wikitravel and I sort of lost the thread. The last that I gathered was that: - Evan and many others want Wikitravel articles to be forward-compatible (if such a term exists) with FDL - Version 2.0 of CC By-SA was released - There were musings about moving Wikitravel to v2.0 - There appeared to be problems with that because the authors of Wikitravel appear to have forgotten about adding the clause "and later versions" to the licence - and that meant that all the contributors' permission would need to be received (or, elsewhere in the discussion - most of the contributors) - I cannot find any later comments on this but subsequently v3.0 was released

So my question is - where does this stand at the moment? Can I, for example, borrow parts of articles from Wikitravel and republish them on a website which is also a wiki, is released under FDL and provides a link to the original Wikitravel article where all the attributions are displayed?

Michael Wisniewski

Are you talking about the GNU FDL, or is there some other non-GNU FDL that I'm not aware of? As far as I understand FDL and CC are not compatible, period, and there's no chance of this changing in the foreseeable future — even with CC 3.0's "compatible license" idea — unless there are radical changes to GFDL. Take a look at Wikitravel:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL and its talk page for some more about this.
Migrating Wikitravel or its content from CC by-sa 1.0 to a later version is an entirely different issue. There's a spectrum of opinions on the idea: some people (like Evan) seem to think it's possible, others don't. But as it would be a lot of work and there hasn't really been any overriding reason to upgrade, we've just stuck with 1.0. Jpatokal 06:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, GNU FDL. Well, who decides that certain two licences are 'not compatible'? Many licences are obviously not compatible and that's clear by logical inference. But where it's not so obvious - who is the worldwide authority on compatibility? I'd like to make a few comments on CC by-sa 1.0 and GNU FDL. I am not a lawyer, but an intelligent observer. I only want to talk about the possibility of redistributing CC by-sa 1.0 under GNU FDL environment, not vice versa.

1. It appears that in this case the only substantive issue is the clause "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one". So the precise wording of GNU FDL is not an issue in this case (of course it's a big obstacle for the 'vice-versa' instance, but not for this one) - the only issue is whether the two licences are "similar" or not. Whether GNU FDL is 'similar' enough to satisfy the CC licence. So the definition of the word "similar" is what's at stake.

2. I don't think there's a universal definition of 'similar'. Any attempt to create one would need to say something like "one which has more attributes that are the same then ones that are different", or "one whose material/substantive attributes that are the same outnumber ones whoch are different". It may be that even under these universal definitions the two licences are 'similar' - but there is no-one who can conclusively say so.

3. Therefore, we need to look at the specific case and the intention of those who originally worded CC by-sa 1.0. When creating it, they had a finite number of licences to consider. They would have considered only the licences which are in general use and I'm sure whey were well aware of the majority of them. Now, it's much easier to find two things which are 'similar' if you only have a finite set to deal with. It's like: "here are 10 kitchen utensils, find ones which are most similar". Rather straighforward.

4. So, if the authors of CC by-sa 1.0 meant anything by saying "or similar license", they surely meant that there are or there may emerge some licences which are "similar". If they knew that at the time of creating CC by-sa 1.0 there was nothing 'similar', they would have said so, e.g. by wording it as: "only under the same license or such similar license to this one as may be created in the future". So in fact they were saying that there are similar licences.

5. Now, from the finite set of known licences at the time - which licence is most 'similar' to CC by-sa 1.0? I would need to study the issue much more deeply to say with confidence that it was GNU FDL - but even if GNU FDL was not the Most similar licence, it was surely among only a handful of licences that could be considered 'similar'. I believe the conclusion is, therefore, that: the authors surely meant something by saying "or similar", and GNU FDL is most certainly 'similar' - in fact there is nothing that's more 'similar', so if "or similar" meant anything, it meant GNU FDL.

6. So most people would now say - well, why don't you ask Creative Commons to state whether they did mean it that way and their statement on this will be conclusive. Actually, I don't agree that that's conclusive at all. Even when a government issues a law, it's the courts (and not the government) that later interpret the law. That's because it needs to be read and interpreted as written and as logically inferred - Not as intended. The reason is that people who use that law (in this case, the licence) would have already understood and used it in a certain way - a way that results from its letter and not its intent. So it's no good when the authors retroactively say that they intended something else than what can be logically inferred from the words. And what can be logically inferred from CC by-sa 1.0? See point 5. above.

7. In effect I think that all that Wikitravel would need to do is to ask a representative sample of contributors, whether they consider GNU FDL "similar" to CC by-sa 1.0. If an large majority agree, it can be concluded that not only by logical reference but also by the understanding of the licence holders, the two licences are similar and therefore one-way compatible.

8. Obviously, to use the Wikitravel texts, the redistributor needs to make sure that they are appropriately attributed to their authors in order to satisfy the "by" clause and the way it's currently done in Wikipedia does not suffice. But this just a problem with Wikipedia - it doesn't really give redistributors enough data on authors for those to obey FDL. In terms of CC by-sa 1.0, I don;t think that the "by" clause is a big issue with Wikitravel. CC by-sa 1.0 says only "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" and Wikitravel authors have not (in most cases) specified how they want these attributions to work. So, if they agree that FDL is 'similar', it should be inferred that they agree that listing 5 principal authors (as FDL requires) is sufficient for them.

Sorry for such a long and probably boring monologue.

Whoah -- I'm afraid you're in the wrong place to be asking this. The short answer is that Creative Commons maintains an official list of compatible licenses, which at the moment contains precisely zero of them, and AFAIK the FSF haven't ever said that CC is GFDL-compatible either.
Something along the lines of the "sampling" you suggest has been proposed for Wikitravel's version upgrade from 1.0 to 3.0 (or whatever), but even this is controversial, and you'd have a much harder trying to argue that licensing something under CC 1.0 implies acceptance of an entirely different license like GFDL. The "5 principal authors" is a good example of the differences: under CC, all authors must be attributed. Jpatokal 08:50, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Three points on that:

1. I wonder why so many people assume that CC by-sa 1.0 requires all authors to be attributed... It doesn't say that! It says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" - that's entirely different. I think Wikitravel may get a really big problem with this - but there is a way to solve that. Let's say that I edit an article here and I write next to my edit "my name must appear at the top of every redistribution in size 30 bold and red". This will be entirely in line with CC and somehow Wikitravel and subsequent redistributors will have to respect that. Two ways to solve that: a) specify the attribution conditions which Wikitravel currently uses which an author must accept when contributing. b) specify the GNU FDL's '5 principal authors' attribution condition, which an author must accept. This is same as above, but makes all subsequent entries forward-compatible with FDL. (CC by-sa 1.0 does not forbid further conditions to be added on top of it.)

My point 8 above argued that most (or even all) authors so far have probably not specified any attribution conditions for their work, which means that if at the same time they believe that FDL is 'similar' to CC by-sa 1.0, then their work is fully forward-compatible with FDL.

2. Jpatokal, you say that "Creative Commons maintains an official list of compatible licenses, which at the moment contains precisely zero of them". But my point under point 6 above is that Creative Commons has no right to make such decisions. CC only provided a text that authors have decided to use to licence their work - any attempt by CC to interpret (and thus in a way change) that text may take away some rights that authors previously thought they had. Just because they came up with the original wording does not give them the right to change it retrospectively. If people have published work believing that it can be redistributed under a 'similar' licence, it's their right to keep that belief. CC cannot later say "Aaah, but there are NO similar licences". I mean, it can say so, but it means nothing. It's the author who can say: "look, I published believing that FDL is similar to CC, I want my work redistributed under FDL, because that way it will reach more people, I still believe that FDL is similar to CC and that's why I chose to publish under CC - the text of my licence said that similar licences are ok".

3. As to sampling, I think that's a way to strengthen the case, although I believe, as argued above, that logical inference alone can establish one-way compatibility - as long as (see point 1) the author does not reserve attribution rights which are stronger than FDL's.

(although I am logged in, somehow my name does not come up with my edits - it's still Michael Wisniewski)

1. If you were to attempt to require attribution in big red bold letters or whatever, your edit would be reverted as going against the Manual of Style and WT conventions, regardless of whether it was "allowed" by the CC license or not. And contrary to your assertion, the license does state that "you must ... give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied ... Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.". My reading of that is that if somebody creates a derivative work using your content, they have to credit you "in a manner at least as prominent as" other authors, but you have no grounds to insist on special attribution.
2. The compatible licenses list means that CC has vetted those licenses and guarantees that they are compatible, and if you're using the 3.0 license, you've given them the explicit right to do so. (This has been a bit controversial.) It does not mean, as you imply, that other licenses are not compatible -- it just means that CC isn't willing to make a legal commitment for that, and it's thus your job to do the legal footwork.
If you want to publish under CC and GFDL, you can do what I do and dual-license everything. But if you make that decision on my behalf, then you had better hope it stands up in court if I challenge it.
PS. You can sign your posts by entering "~~~~". Jpatokal 23:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think the result of this discussion has been my better education on the issue of licences. You are right. And I simply missed the Legal Code text of CC-by-sa 1.0, limiting myself to the summary, to which the ikon at the bottom of this page links. [By the way, it's a bit stupid of the CC to make a sumary, which misses out some of the most important aspects.]

In the end of this my position is that while I stick to my views on 'similarity' of GFDL to CC-by-sa 1.0, and therefore believe that GFDL satisfies the SA part of CC-by-SA 1.0, the Attribution part of the latter is not satisfied by GDFL and that's what makes them incompatible (for purposes of redistributing CC under GFDL). "Michael Wisniewski 05:20, 14 September 2007 (EDT)"

Why two non-identical English language "Copyleft" pages?[edit]

Any reason not to merge Wikitravel:Copyleft into Shared:Copyleft then redirect the former to the latter? ~ 08:56, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I've now synchronised Shared:Copyleft with Wikitravel:Copyleft and redirected the latter to the former. ~ 07:20, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Compatible licences[edit]

I just added a "Compatible licences" section. Should anything else be listed? ~ 09:47, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

The "Compatible Licences" page at Creative Commons appears to list zero licenses. That makes it sort of confusing to link to. Right now, it appears there are no compatible licenses, so this talk of WikiTravel accepting content from licenses compatible with CC is a bit empty. JimDeLaHunt 15:25, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
I'd agree that if there are no compatible licences then all mention of compatible licences should be removed and replaced with a simple plain English statement unequivocally confirming that there is only one acceptable licence.
What about "PD" - Public Domain - ? ~ 07:59, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

GFDL and Creative Commons[edit]

[swept in from the pub]

There's a Slashdot item pointing to an announcement that Wikipedia and FSF are changing GFDL to make it compatible with the Creative Commons license. [4] This would mean we could use material from Wikipedia and other GFDL sites. We probably would not want much of their text since our goals are different,but it could be really good for maps and photos.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pashley (talkcontribs)

Yup. It will also mean skipping the hassle of periodically explaining to newcomers why they can't do the seemingly harmless thing of copying info about history and geography from WP to WT. - Todd VerBeek 20:56, 1 December 2007 (EST)
yes, yes, yes. That would be an unbelievably huge step. OpenStreetMaps and wikipedia content would suddenly all be available --NJR_ZA 04:03, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Can someone who can read the official Wikimedia Foundation statement (link on page pointed to above, but it does not work for me, probably because of the Great Firewall) please look at the details? There may be limitations I'm not aware of. Once you have details, please track the process and make appropriate announcements and policy changes here when their new license is in place. Methinks this is important enough to be well worth doing, but I cannot do it. Volunteers? Pashley 06:07, 2 December 2007 (EST)

The key bits of the Wikimedia Foundation's statement are:
  • The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
  • Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing.
The Foundation can't just "relicense" Wikipedia, but they can use a clause in the GFDL to allow the use of "any later version" of the license, by making GFDL 2.0 say "Oh, and if this is a wiki, you can also relicense it under the terms of CC-By-SA if you want". FSF was already working a revision of GFDL to allow relicensing under a "GNU Wiki License" which was going to fix some of the problems of applying GFDL 1.x to wikis; I'm guessing they've just agreed to substitute CC-By-SA for that. The "migration" of Wikipedia isn't a done deal yet (that whole discussion-and-vote formality), and there are already some partisans wailing and gnashing teeth over this, but they're a very small number of people, and if Jimbo, RMS, and Lessig all want this to happen with WP, it will. Note: It will be up to every other project currently using GFDL 1.x whether they want to upgrade their license to the CC-By-SA-compatible one. Most presumably will, but there's probably a WikiCreativeCommonsSux out there that won't, and we won't be able to accept content from them. -Todd VerBeek 10:48, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Meanwhile, Citizendium — a new project from one of the wikipedia founders with no anon edits and more control by experts — have just chosen a CC-by-SA license. See Wikitravel_talk:Cooperating_with_Citizendium. Pashley 04:12, 22 December 2007 (EST)

But it's CC-by-SA 3.0, and CC-by-SA 1.0 isn't "any later version" compliant - correct? ~ 05:37, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Answering my own question - says: "version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only". ~ 06:43, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Good grief! That appears to mean that — even if Wikipedia goes to a CC license and even though Citizendium already uses 3.0 and OpenStreetMaps uses 2.0 and various other sites do or will — we cannot share content with any of them! We can neither re-license our stuff to their later licenses nor import theirs and use it under our CC-by-SA 1.0. I don't think this was the intent of anyone involved; all players want to share, but we seem to have painted ourselves into a corner legally. How can we fix this? Pashley 07:52, 23 December 2007 (EST)
We already have the problem. Several images have been nominated for deletion because they are CC-by-SA 2.0 or later rather than 1.0. Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion#Image:Viking_ship_in_Stockholms_strom.jpg and following. I'd say we are headed for disaster here; this needs an urgent fix. Pashley 15:33, 24 December 2007 (EST)
I don't think there is any reason to delete non–CC-by-SA 1.0 images, since we provide image specific licensing information. But we do not provide text-specific licensing (since that's not feasible); our strict incompatibility is a big problem and does not serve the interests of Wikitravel. We would benefit in a pretty huge way by allowing compatibility with all CC attribution/share-alike licenses, without incurring any negative changes to how the site works and to the promises of the copyleft.
The one obstacle to changing our copyleft from "CC-by-SA 1.0" to "any CC-by-SA" is that we have promised everyone who has, up to such a change, contributed to Wikitravel that their work would be licensed specifically as CC-by-SA 1.0. What we would need to do is ask everyone who has ever written anything on the site to agree to such a change.
So we have a problem of needing a micro change that has big benefits, but requires macro support. Other sites have done this, right? World66 did, and they're owned by the same people who own our servers—in all likelihood they have some knowledge of the technical details of such a change. I say we open a feature request on shared and move this discussion to the talk page of that tech page. --Peter Talk 18:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Did that, with feature title "License upgrade". Pashley 01:41, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I have commented on this at: Redondo 16:35, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Compatibility on :ru[edit]

Since the Russian version is still very young and has had probably no more than 40 distinct contributors so far, I decided to use it as a bit of a licensing guinea pig. I've modified the copyleft and terms of use pages to indicate that all text on the site will automatically fall under the most recent CC-by-SA license (unless we explicitly decide to opt out of a specific license in the future) and may be reused under any of the CC Attribution-ShareAlike licenses. I'm not worried about legal challenges—there are so few contributors right now, only a handful of whom understood the copyleft to begin with, and Russians are not big into intellectual property laws.

Am I right in thinking that this is optimally how we would set up our Copyleft? And does this mean that we now have compatibility on the Russian version with Wikipedia? Or will that come in the future? One of the main reasons I'm doing this is because I was having a heck of a time trying to explain the GDFL-CC incompatibility problem in Russian ;) --Peter Talk 00:31, 13 January 2008 (EST)

On the same note, anyone know how to change the value of "$1" in MediaWiki:Copyright and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning? It puts a link to the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, but I'd prefer it point to the most recent one for the Russian version. --Peter Talk 00:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I don't understand how you can legally change the licence from CC-by-SA 1.0 without the permission of the contributors. If you can't confirm that what you've done is unequivocally 100% legal, you should change it back immediately. ~ 01:00, 13 January 2008 (EST)
In a strict legal sense, I cannot change the license without the permission of each individual contributor. But I cannot contact anonymous contributors for their permission. Because there have been so few edits thus far, if anyone complains (and I sincerely doubt anyone will), I can go through article histories and remove whatever they have contributed until this date. I'd rather delete all content and start over, frankly, than get stuck in the CC-by-SA 1.0 box, but I don't see any reason to do that. So in short, no. --Peter Talk 01:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)
When you say "So in short, no." what do you mean? No it's not legal? ~ 01:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I mean no, I won't change it back, for the reasons in both posts above.
So you accept that what you've done isn't legal? ~ 01:51, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I've already said as much, above. And, again, for the reasons above, I don't care that I'm not following the letter of the law. I've clearly announced what I'm doing both here and on the Russian version. Like I said, above, If a contributor to the Russian Wikitravel objects, I will remove all information they have contributed. If IB objects, I'll go along with them. --Peter Talk 02:03, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Should this section be split into two, so there's a section on the question you want answered, and another section on the issue I find unacceptable? ~ 02:10, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I think you should start a new section altogether for your concerns and please stop disrupting my attempts to get my specific questions answered. --Peter Talk 02:15, 13 January 2008 (EST)
But I'd really rather not get sidetracked—if we could please get back to the questions I wanted answers to: Is this how we would optimally set up our Copyleft throughout Wikitravel, the legal issues of such a change aside? Does this mean that we now have compatibility on the Russian version with Wikipedia? Or will that come in the future? --Peter Talk 01:45, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Jpatokal 07:26, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Also, I think our dear's objection, while understandable, is moot. Few things in the world of copyright are "unequivocally 100% legal", but if you can show how you've suffered damages from upgrading from 1.0 to 3.0, you can go ahead and sue poor Peter. Good luck proving it though: as an anonymous user, you've already voluntarily abrogated their own right to attribution, and sharealikeness is maintained by 3.0. Jpatokal 07:26, 13 January 2008 (EST)
All irrelevant. The point is that what's been done is obviously not legal, and has been acknowledged as such - even though, by soliciting permission and deleting that for which permission isn't forthcoming, an effectively identical result could be achieved legally. It's an unacceptable precedent. ~ 08:51, 13 January 2008 (EST)
No, you're not getting it. This is not a matter of criminal law where things are "legal" or "not legal", this is a matter of contract law and copyright law, and we're smack dab in the middle of a grey area.
CC 2.0 has an explicit statement to make it upward compatible. CC 1.0 does not, but it says You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License. Now, does "this license" mean "CC by-sa 1.0 only", or does it mean "CC by-sa" in general? Dunno — the license doesn't say.
So, now Peter is asserting "in general", and you're asserting "only". You can't go to the police and say "Arrest Peter for a license violation!", because this is not in their jurisdiction. Now, you could sue Peter in civil court... but under what grounds? Breach of contract won't work, because Peter and you haven't made a contract. (Licensing something under CC isn't a contract, because you get nothing at all for doing so.) Copyright violation? You'd have present some prima facie evidence that you've suffered actual damages due to this change -- good luck with that. You can't even file for statutory damages (in the US) unless you've registered your works with the Copyright Office. Jpatokal 22:31, 13 January 2008 (EST)
You say nobody knows, but Creative Commons has stated that from version 2.0, derivatives may be re-published under a later version of the same license as the original work, whereas "version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only" (their emphasis, not mine) [5] ~ 04:43, 14 January 2008 (EST) ([email protected]:29)
Nuh-uh, your quote is out of context. The section you're quoting starts Version 2.0 licenses that feature the Share Alike requirement now clarify that derivatives may be re-published under one of three types of licenses .... In other words, in 1.0 it's unclear, while in 2.0+ it's clear. Jpatokal 08:32, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Disagree. Here's the entire paragraph:
Version 2.0 licenses that feature the Share Alike requirement now clarify that derivatives may be re-published under one of three types of licenses: (1) the exact same license as the original work; (2) a later version of the same license as the original work; (3) an iCommons license that contains the same license elements as the original work (e.g. BY-SA-NC, as defined in Section 1 of each license). The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only. Our tweak means much better compatibility across future jurisdiction-specific licenses and, going forward, across versions. Less forking, more fun.
~ 08:40, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Right, but the "now clarify" wording indicates that they had intended for the 1.0 to be compatible with later versions of the same license, but had messed up a bit with the initial license wording. Thus my change of the Russian Wikitravel's copyleft is follows the spirit of the license, if not the wording.
But all this is purely moot because it just doesn't matter unless someone involved in a contractual relationship with Russian Wikkitravel actually cares about this tiny change in the licensing of the site's text. Being as I have personally reviewed every single edit made to that site by its ~40 unique contributors (and there haven't been that many), I can say with 99.99% certainty that no one does. Of the contributors to the Russian travel guides, I would wager that only one contributor besides myself (ru:User:Kneiphof) actually has read and understands the license to any extent (and he has neither objected nor even commented on this tiny licensing change, presumably because it matters so little from the viewpoint of a contributor). Virtually every other edit has either not inserted any substantial original prose, or actually included text that violated the copyleft and needed vetting. So this whole argument strikes me as both silly and ignorant of the realities of the young Russian Wikitravel project.
In any rate, I can argue that failure to object to this very minor and clearly announced change in the licensing of text is a tacit approval of the change itself. In the roughly 00.01% possibility that someone does complain, I'll remove their text from the site.
Clearly, though, we will have trouble fixing the licensing on the English version of Wikitravel, given the pointlessly obstinate, shallow, and vehement objections raised (here, not by anyone on the Russian Wikitravel) against this change to the Russian project's licensing. For a wiki to work well, it is necessary that people not stake out extreme positions and that they be willing to work pragmatically—not simply raise and repeat assertorial objections without so much as even responding to the arguments made prior in the discussion. --Peter Talk 16:35, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Laws, at least in my country, are governed by precedent. Laws are ill-defined until tested in court. The letter of the law is very often altered when: 1) a reasonable person does something questionable according to the letter of the law, 2) then someone legalistic and unreasonable sues that person, and 3) a reasonable judge finds in the reasonable person's favor. This is fortunate—otherwise poorly written agreements would prevent people from finding pragmatic solutions to simple problems. In any rate, I invite you to take me to court, since you are so outraged by this "unacceptable" act.

Now does Russian Wikitravel now have compatibility with Wikipedia? Or is that still being worked on elsewhere? --Peter Talk 15:00, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I think the GNU FDL/CC thing is still being worked out, but I'm not sure. Yes, you're on the right track, but still no where near being there. You should have sought permission from everyone who has edited and deleted edits from anonymous users for sake of ease. Rather, I would have simply deleted every single page with edits from anyone you could not specifically identify and get their approval to change the license. I also want to mention I agree with 203.whatever and I've sent and email to IB asking that they finally help us solve this damned question. Also, Peter, yes, the US legal system, for the most part, is grand, but what about these post-Soviet states? Are their legal systems reasonable? A quick look at Russia would tell me no way – Russia's legal system seems completely backwards, though I'm no expert of Russian courts. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 17:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)

As long as WT is hosted in the US, it's United States law that applies, not Russian. Jpatokal 22:31, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I can ask our legal folks to look into this if that's helpful. Ahead of that, will you please help me understand the benefit of the change? Is it to make Wikitravel and Wikipedia content inter-changeable? Or is it that the current license on Wikitravel is not one that is well known or understood? Thanks for clarifying this for me! Redondo 00:39, 14 January 2008 (EST)
The benefit is that it will greatly allow a more liberal use of Wikitravel content, but it will also allow us to use material that we cannot use, especially images and eventually some material from Wikipedia. Everyone knows the and understands the current license fairly easily, but it severely limits the content that we can use. As an example, I argue that we cannot use a CC-by-SA 2.0 licensed image because it's license is not verbatim to the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, but also that the CC-by-SA 1.0 does not include a clause that states a piece of work licensed under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license can be used or upgraded to a more up-to-date CC-by-SA license. The CC-by-SA 2.0 and later licenses have a clause that allow works licensed under these licenses to be included and relicensed under a later version of CC-by-SA license. For example, a picture I take can be licensed under CC-by-SA 2.0 and could be used by someone in a CC-by-SA 6.0 further down the road with no problems.
Jani, I agree about the servers, but I was taking a more comprehensive hypothetical view. I.e. if a Russian entrepreneur decides to start printing Russian travel guides based on WT/ru content... Then, if he printed content that mixed CC-by-SA 1.0 and 3.0 he'd be screwed. True, that ru: is at infant mode and it's unlikely to of great concern, but the point should still be considered. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 04:24, 14 January 2008 (EST)
See also the discussion just above under #GFDL and Creative Commons Pashley 09:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

move all discussions to shared:?[edit]

As long as the main article simply redirects to shared:, can we move all the discussion archives there as well, to keep things organized? With no objections to follow during 2 weeks, I will plunge forward. --DenisYurkin 03:22, 17 February 2008 (EST)

cc by sa 1.0 disclaimer on Edit page[edit]

Shouldn't that read "If you do not want your work to be re-used, for commercial or other purposes, on other web sites, print or other media or modified by other users please do not submit!" In re the discussion on Wikitravel Talk:Wikitravel Press the current warning seems inadequate.--Wandering 18:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)

"All contributions must be your own original work or work that is explicitly licensed under a CC-BY-SA compatible license."
Should read:
"All contributions must be your own original work or work that is explicitly licensed as CC-BY-SA-1.0"
The "compatible license" part should be removed as there are none (alternatively it could be left in and made to link to shared:Copyleft#Compatible licenses, but I'm sure it's best to keep it clear and simple and just take it out altogether). ~ 00:08, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I agree that the edit window message is misleading—by specifically mentioning "other web sites," it makes it seem as though it can be re-used only by other web sites. I'd prefer an accurate, clear, and to the point message like:
If you do not want your work to be available for anyone to use within the terms of our Copyleft, or allow it to be modified by other users, please do not submit!
But for the second point, I'd prefer to not alter that until we, IB, and Creative Commons have decided definitively what we are going to do here.
On another note, it seemed that my simple addition of the zh: link to the MediaWiki Recentchangestext the other night crashed our servers for a full hour. That's really not acceptable. I'm worried that this change will cause a similar crash. --Peter Talk 03:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I agree with Peter on the shorter message with a link to Copyleft for the details.
However, I'd say do it now. Pashley 04:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Copyvios & "permission notes"[edit]

Two questions.

1) The {{copyvio}} tag says: "If you are the author of the content in question, please let us know that it's OK for us to use your work by leaving a note on the talk page". Do we have any guidelines on what kind of "note" is acceptable? For example, are these "notes" considered acceptable/credible:

2) Do we have any guidelines as to what should happen subsequent to a {{copyvio}} tag being added?

Thanks. ~ 03:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I'd accept Laurentides because he/she explains it, and gives an email address at the source site. I would not accept BD who just says "on behalf of" without specifically claiming affiliation or permission. Pashley 05:05, 25 January 2008 (EST)
This is a tough one. Anyone can claim anything and we obviously can't do a follow up check. Like Pashley, I'd be inclined to accept Talk:Laurentides because of the email address (is it possible to forward a copy of the license to that address so that they know they're relinquishing their copyright to the material) and reject User:Borndistinction because there is no reasonable way of confirming the release. In both cases, the contributed does not claim authorship but says that the original author (or rather copyright owner) has agreed to the material being used whereas the copyvio tag seems to want only the original author to post material. Perhaps the tag can be modified along the following lines: "If you are the author of the content in question, or if the original author or copyright owner has given you permission to use this material, please let us know that it's OK for us to use this work by leaving a note on the talk page, along with the email address of the author or copyright owner so that we can, if necessary, send a copy of our cc-by-sa-1.0 license." --Wandering 12:05, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I think a Wikitravel:How to deal with copyvios page is needed. The existing Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits#Copyright violations guidelines are out of date and incomplete, and I think that section should be moved to a dedicated page, updated, and expanded. ~ 11:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)