Template:CharterVote2/43/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
"The Citizendium intends to put content under open source license(s) approved by the Combined Councils, although there may be licenses specific to external partnerships. The Management Council, however, may put restrictions on licenses with respect to specific licensees determined to be acting against the Citizendium's ability to produce content and encourage Citizen retention." Howard C. Berkowitz 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Above, under Article 32, the charter states that the license shall be decided by a referendum. Russell D. Jones 15:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Citizendium intends to put content under open source license(s) approved by Citizen referendum. The Citizendium Foundation Management Council reserves the right is empowered to upgrade the license version number (not the license) on behalf of contributors. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions of the respective originators.

I like this. Do, however, we need a clause that essentially is the mirror of the last sentence above. Let me say, informally, I don't like complete clone sites, or sites that merge our content in a way that knocks down our ratings -- while they haven't added much content and, in fact, may be attacking us in other areas. Perhaps I need to think and get consultation on how this has been handled in Open Source -- some of the recent WP imports may be analogous to Microsoft cloning a bad LINUX and then using its marketing resources to push it and get people to hate LINUX. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Citizendium intends to put content under open source license(s) approved by Citizen referendum. The Management Council reserves the right to upgrade the license version number (not the license) on behalf of contributors. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions of the respective originators, and licensing of CZ-originated material assumes the material is not used to the detriment of Citizendium." Howard C. Berkowitz 00:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel Citizendium material should be fully open. Attribution is important but there should not be restrictions on who can use or re-use the material. --Joe Quick 04:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with Joe IF we have to mention anything about the license at all. We could just say, "The Management Council will determine the type and scope of license." Of course the MC can deligate that decision to the Citizendium Foundation or Owner as they see fit. But, this is not something that I feel competent in determining on my own, so do think it through and get input from others more knowledgeable.

D. Matt Innis 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Matt to leave it to the MC in detail. I am not comfortable trying to deal with CZ-WP, and for that matter of Google, in the Charter. That needs wider discussion and expertise.

So, that's a vote for Matt's "The Management Council will determine the type and scope of license.". Howard C. Berkowitz 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Our preamble declares that a primary purpose of CZ is to "render [knowledge] conveniently accessible to the public for free." "Free" could mean simply that you don't have to pay to see it, but given precedent and the nature of the project, I think it will (and should) be interpreted to mean open source/copyleft: people may access it without cost and they are free to use it themselves. So not declaring in the Charter, at minimum, that Citizendium material is available under a copyleft license is very awkward and hints at manipulations going on behind the scenes, whether any shady business is actually occurring or not. I propose the following:

• Original Citizendium material is currently made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (original source) license. The Management Council reserves the right to upgrade the license version on behalf of contributors, but any change in license must be confirmed through public referendum. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions stipulated by copyright owners.

Forgot to sign again. Joe Quick 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"A" Copyleft license, yes. Specific license, no, not just version, unless we direct the MC to have a referendum on the license. Preamble and licensing are at different levels of detail. Again, I like Matt's formulation. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But we already have a license. There was no official referendum but it was discussed in public. What's the problem with stating something that is true? -Joe Quick 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Because it's too fine-grained for the Charter. The MC should be free to review it, within policy guidelines of copyleft. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The terms under which we share our work is a really important part of Citizendium for me. The MC or the whole community is free to review anything in the Charter and send it to a referendum. I'm willing to be out voted on this, but I won't agree to any wording that leaves out the license under which our material is *already* available. -Joe Quick 20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe, there are lots of things that already exist but are open to review. To me, copyleft captures the policy. We have workgroups today but I think most agree they will be redone, so we don't put them into the Charter -- we don't even mention them.

CZ is no longer a WP fork and license issues may be very important to our identity. I'm not willing to let CZ, without discussion, be overwhelmed by a larger organization importing our best content. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Again, I am not anything close to comfortable pretending to know anything about this subject and am listening to those who know more before making my determination. Can we not compromise on something close to mine and Joe's formulation? Joe, it looks like your concern is that the public referendum be made? Or is it that we don't state the current license? Or is it that we give the MC the right to choose it? D. Matt Innis 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to what I thought was Matt's formulation, "The Management Council will determine the type and scope of license." We could add "copyleft" before "license". Howard C. Berkowitz 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that the license statement has to fit with the preamble, and that this means some sort of "open". Copyleft is too imprecise, and open source licenses are for software, while we are mainly talking about content licenses here (though open source would be relevant once we release a Citizendium extension, or similar, for MediaWiki). The best definition that I know and that is applicable to open content is already linked from my spreadsheet comment. --Daniel Mietchen 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone get us back on track with a proposed article? I'm with Matt on this. I'm not that conversant with the implications of this law and could go either way: be explicit with the license or vague. So I'd like someone who has a strong opinion propose something. Russell D. Jones 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

Material originating at Citizendium shall always be free to use, reuse, and redistribute — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike. The Management Council has the right to upgrade the license version on behalf of contributors, but any change in license type must be confirmed through public referendum. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions stipulated by the respective copyright owners. For all material, the applicable copyright license shall be clearly stated.

--Daniel Mietchen 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Couple questions:

Is this saying that the owners of Citizendium cannot change the license?

Who initiates the public referendum?

D. Matt Innis 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(adapted the text a bit further, independent of your questions)

With this phrasing, the MC would be able to change the license in some ways (e.g. to CC-BY instead of CC-BY-SA) but not others (e.g. not to CC-BY-NC-ND-SA). As per article 25, all referendums are to be organized by the MC. --Daniel Mietchen 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We may have a conflict with Article 32 on referendums. Everything we have on referenda specifically states that the public initiates the process. Is there a way for the management to initiate a referenda (and should there be). D. Matt Innis 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to drop the declaration of the current license as long as an assertion of the spirit of freedom that undergirds the project is maintained. Daniel's text is pretty good, but I think we should explain what we want when we use terms like "attribution" and "share-alike" if we don't have a link to the actual license. Here's my revision:

• Material originating at Citizendium shall always be free to use, reuse, and redistribute — subject only, at most, to the requirement that those who reuse Citizendium content acknowledge the source of the material and make derivative works equally free to use, reuse, and redistribute. The Management Council has the right to upgrade the license version on behalf of contributors, but any change in license type must be confirmed through public referendum. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions stipulated by the respective copyright owners. For all material, the applicable copyright license shall be clearly stated.

Matt, are you worried about the word "confirm"? -Joe Quick 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Joe's version. As for Matt's question, I think all members of the MC can act as Citizens as per art. 32, and they have the right to invite other Citizens to join the motion. If this fails, a referendum would likely not stand good chances of supporting the MC's suggestion anyway. --Daniel Mietchen 11:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe, yes, I bet 'confirmed' is my problem. Better word? ratified, affirmed, something else?

Daniel, that works for me, thanks.

D. Matt Innis 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Agree with "ratify", since we have established procedures for that. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Using "ratified" instead of "confirmed", we have the following:

Material originating at Citizendium shall always be free to use, reuse, and redistribute — subject only, at most, to the requirement that those who reuse Citizendium content acknowledge the source of the material and make derivative works equally free to use, reuse, and redistribute. The Management Council has the right to upgrade the license version on behalf of contributors, but any change in license type must be ratified through public referendum. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions stipulated by the respective copyright owners. For all material, the applicable copyright license shall be clearly stated.

That's fine with me. --Daniel Mietchen 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Russell D. Jones 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) And just to put my two cents in, I think Daniel interpretation of the referendum procedure is correct. Officials, acting as citizens, may propose a referendum to either the EC or MC.

I have added a mention of the current license to the interim guidance section. --Daniel Mietchen 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, agree. Joe Quick 04:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Howard C. Berkowitz 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)