Page MenuHomePhabricator

Wikivoyage should not require GFDL licensing grant
Open, LowPublic

Description

All Wikivoyage languages currently require the CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual-licensing grant. WMF legal advises that since Wikivoyage incorporates a lot of CC-BY-SA-only material, it would be cleaner to avoid the GFDL dual-licensing. This does not conflict with importing content back into Wikipedia, as importing CC-BY-SA-only content is explicitly permitted under the Terms of Use.

This version of the copyright warning has been vetted by legal:
http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning&oldid=2085117

To consistently implement it across Wikivoyage licenses while leaving other projects unaffected, we may want to add a new wikivoyage-copyrightwarning message to WikimediaMessages and ensure it only gets rendered in place of wikimedia-copyrightwarning on Wikivoyage sites.

Unless legal advises differently, I will leave this as low priority for now since the GFDL grant doesn't seem to be actively harmful (even if it is invalid in many cases).


Version: master
Severity: normal

Details

Reference
bz44023

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Low.Nov 22 2014, 1:18 AM
bzimport set Reference to bz44023.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

I've just noticed that the copyright warning on en:voy is different from the ones in other language versions (it:voy, de:voy, fr:voy, etc...).

Do these other language versions be aligned to the one of en:voy (i.e. mentioning only CC-BY-SA without GFDL)?

I've just noticed that the copyright warning on en:voy is different from the ones in other language versions (it:voy, de:voy, fr:voy, etc...).

Do these other language versions be aligned to the one of en:voy (i.e. mentioning only CC-BY-SA without GFDL)?

This is not something that can be altered locally.

Nemo, few language versions have customized it. For example ru:voy has removed the GFDL licence from that warning.
So my doubt is: do we have to adopt the same licence (i.e. align the wording in those file), or it's fine that each version shows different licence?

It's not fine. The local customisations have to be removed and WikimediaMessages tweaked if necessary.

So MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning in each project should be deleted (like the one mentioned in the first post added by Philippe (WMF)? In the affirmative a steward should take care about it.