tickets #120375


add license CC-BY-SA-4.0 to wiki

Added by jzerebecki over 1 year ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:


We should probably lazily migrate the wiki to CC-BY-SA-4.0, by adding it (as SPDX OR) for new edits and having a mechanism by which people can certify relicensing all their edits. And clarify that the existing GFDL license is without invariant sections.
As a mechanism for relicensing I'd suggest a Category page named User-licencing-under-CC-BY-SA-4.0 which people can add to their user page that reads: "These users chose to relicense all their edits to this wiki under the license Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International. You can do so, too by adding this Category to your user page.".
Thus the new licensing footer will be: "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 without invariants or (at your option) for content edited after $date-this-was-added under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International unless otherwise noted."
The result would be in SPDX: CC-BY-SA-4.0 OR GFDL-1.2-no-invariants-only

Before we should ask on the relevant mailing-list if anyone objects.

Actions #1

Updated by jzerebecki over 1 year ago

  • Private changed from Yes to No
Actions #2

Updated by pjessen over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback

We should probably lazily migrate the wiki to CC-BY-SA-4.0,

I don't have any reason to disagree with you, but maybe you ought to explain why we should do that? It seems to be quite a bit of effort.

Actions #3

Updated by jzerebecki over 1 year ago

CC-BY-SA-4.0 overall has better compatibility and is easier to reuse. It has a mechanism to use the content under GPL-3. Many other wikis migrated from GFDL to CC-BY-SA-3.0. CC-BY-SA-3.0 has an upgrade mechanism to CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thus it is compatible with content from Wikipedia and Stackoverflow. My guess is the most common sharing of content of this wiki is with spec files, while CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not always compatible with the spec file license, a GFDL license is much less likely to be compatible.

Elsewhere there was talk about which licenses were suggested. Thus I filled out and created this ticket, as it is part of my standard licensing suggestions to avoid the GFDL.

With lazily I meant to not explicitly ask people to grant an additional license to past edits, just when ever someone is interest on their own. So the effort should be small, though it is still some effort, changing the footer, a mailing list discussion, and additional complexity. Maybe that is too much. Maybe it is more than the regular effort of dealing with the current license (e.g. checking that one has a compatible correct licence, relicensing when copying from and copying to works with other licenses). I don't know.

If we think its too much work we should only clarify that the license is the one without invariants.

Actions #4

Updated by crameleon 6 months ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Workable

Also available in: Atom PDF