|Creative Commons 4.0 upgrade|
Frequently asked questions
How will this affect Wikipedia?Edit
What is different between Creative Commons 3.0 versus 4.0?Edit
The license will continue to have the same basic requirements—providing appropriate credit and distribute remixes under the same license.
In the legal note, we highlight some of the most important differences for Wikimedia, including new official translations, increased readability, a revised description of the attribution requirement, an opportunity to correct license violations, and more. Creative Commons has also published a comparison of the changes in the license.
How can we "upgrade" the license?Edit
Was the 3.0 version available in other languages?Edit
CC BY-SA 3.0 did not have official translations of the unported license text, although it had translated license deeds and a number of international ports. The ported versions of CC BY-SA 3.0 were substantially similar to each other, but included some legal modifications to reflect the local jurisdiction. Creative Commons' new license translation policy will allow them to set official translations of the version 4.0 license. CC BY-SA 4.0 International is intended to be legally effective everywhere.
How will this affect English Wikinews and other projects that don't currently use CC BY-SA 3.0?Edit
English Wikinews may upgrade to CC BY 4.0 International, without adopting the version 3.0 of the license. Projects may continue to opt-out of the default license where appropriate.
How will this affect Wikidata (which currently uses CC0)?Edit
Wikidata will continue to use CC0 for contributions, which will make it easy to add and share factual data on the project.
CC BY-SA 4.0 International includes new requirements for database rights, in jurisdictions where those rights exist. To avoid introducing new ambiguity around the requirements for factual contributions of data sets, which may be covered by database rights in certain jurisdictions, we've proposed waiving these rights under the license. This is outlined in more detail in the legal note.
Can I use version 4.0 for images and other non-text contributions?Edit
Yes! You can upload media to Wikimedia Commons under the 4.0 version of the license.
The sharealike clause in the CC BY-SA license helps promote the values of free culture. It asks users to continue to share their improvements and modifications to works that are offered to them freely under the Creative Commons license.
If the license were just CC BY (without a sharealike clause), people would be able to use content from the Wikimedia projects for any purpose, but if they made changes, they could put those changes under additional copyright restrictions and forbid others to use them. The ideal is to make the world's knowledge available for everyone, and using a license that makes sure contributions to that knowledge remain available for everyone helps work toward that goal.
When deciding which license to use, the Wikimedia community for the most part chose CC BY-SA instead of BY because the CC BY-SA license helps promote the values of free culture, as described in Creative Commons's statement of intent for the attribution-sharealike licenses. For historical reasons, the CC BY-SA license was also chosen for its compatibility with Wikipedia's previous GNU Free Document License. Some other projects, such as English Wikinews, choose to use the use the CC BY license.
- 1 Frequently asked questions
- 1.1 How will this affect Wikipedia?
- 1.2 What is different between Creative Commons 3.0 versus 4.0?
- 1.3 How can we "upgrade" the license?
- 1.4 Was the 3.0 version available in other languages?
- 1.5 How will this affect English Wikinews and other projects that don't currently use CC BY-SA 3.0?
- 1.6 How will this affect Wikidata (which currently uses CC0)?
- 1.8 Can I use version 4.0 for images and other non-text contributions?
- 1.9 Why does Wikipedia use a "sharealike" license like CC BY-SA?
- 2 General support and opposition
- 3 Comments about this process
- 4 Discussion
General support and oppositionEdit
Comments about this processEdit
- Archiving comments while the discussion is ongoing, when the conversion would be over within weeks, was/is not appropriate. The autoarchive settings are disruptive.
- We shouldn't use the notice board for that, we are seeing a lot of comments from who do not understand the question... at least are this only visible for Autoconfirmed?? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think wikipedia should do a poll/vote popup. That way, a large number of people can give quick feedback without spending time on commenting. -Meg
- This discussion is nonsensical in terms of ALL Wikimedia content (it would make sense in specific Wikimedia projects). Note that some project used so far compatibility in licenses to import content, we can't therefore re-license any of those works by absentia (previous attempts have at best resulted in a dual licensing situation) that at later time if enough personal or economic motivation exist can come to bite back Wikimedia. --126.96.36.199 10:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sinct this migration is explicitly permitted by the current license, we can do this for authors who oppose, let alone for those who don't express any opinion; and we want to ensure the free reusage content from any wiki on any other wiki, so they must all have compatable licenses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Most people commenting here seem misinformed, not knowing a thing about what these licenses are about. Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e)
- Agree: The poor quality of the feedback is the result of the poor quality of the outreach. All our policies start with an 'in a nutshell' section. This one starts off saying the plan is "to use the latest version of the Creative Commons license". This is clearly confusing a large fraction of the people providing feedback, who think this is a bigger change than from 3.0 to 4.0 of the same basic license; better wording is needed. Maybe change that wording to: "to continue to use the latest version of the Creative Commons license by making these changes)". Likewise, the announcement page say, "We are considering upgrading the default copyright license for Wikimedia to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0."; no mention of what we're moving from. I can see that legal tried - they made a FAQ, after all. But a bit more QA is needed when you know you're going to impact many, many people.--Elvey (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, these licenses are good. They can really give some hopes and respects to our common writers who dedicated themselves into daily creations and identifications of knowledge in wiki-group, especially when facing some new-coming and new-forming knowledge of or accross multiple-discplinary knowledge, which haven't been assessed just as right or wrong. They have this kind of enthusiasms in creative writing. We need to leave more spaces for their professional expressions in their fields. And, some volunteers in system can together make their writings better. They believed in Wiki. This is our honour. Creative Commons License 4's coming, I think, should be an all-inclusive evolution - respecting the past, giving some portals connecting the past licences-channels systermatically and try to protect some original creative ideas in good usages. Creative commons can write down them in Wiki - that's our joyfulness, no matter what types if a little bit clear, we can try to help them, collect some new and modify them in a new system, rather than excluding them. Another thing, we can try to understand more 'special personilities and habits' of our diverse writers in different fields. They may have very different voices and some strong abilities than normal, and they are willing to be heard. If losing them, it's the lacks of oursleves. Open more doors, worlds will be much larger than we thought. That's my personal comment. Hoping fine! Jason M. C., Han (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)