Yes and no. A lot go for the equivalent of a no commercial use license. In other cases there is significant amounts of PD material around (crown copyright expired for example) but no one is prepared to pay the cost of digitalising.
Most European systems are something of a mess in this area but a DMCA style take down notice would probably be considered due notice and ignoring it unless you are ready to go to court would be a bad idea.
Red hat only produce a fairly small percentage of GPL (or even linux) code. Wikipedia is a massively high percentage of GFDL material. Other than wikipedia there are a few wikipedia inspired wikis and a few software manuals.
To get the same level of impact with the GPL you would need every linux, KDE, and Gnome coders (and then some) to demand a change.
Indeed it could be argued that one of the problems this fixes is that we no longer have a situation where GFDL usage is hopelessly unbalanced in the direction of one project. Of course CC is going to end up rather unbalanced but not nearly to the same extent. There are other players in the CC world who if they cannot match wikipedia are at least within an order of magnitude (or at most 2).
While it is technically true that most of the problems of the GFDL could be fixed by improving the GFDL and creating the GSFDL the FSF has shown little inclination to do this.
Remember
1)GFDL is not a free license (it contains rather a lot of invariant sections as well as deliberate ones)
2)It is unusable for images in many contexts. Postcards say.
3)even for text it is highly problematical using GFDL text with a computer program is not easy.
This is not a case of CC supporters trying to knock the FSF. In fact a number of the supporters of this move either dislike or do not entirely trust CC. The problem is the FSF has proven either unable or unwilling to produce a viable free content license with the result that a switch to CC-BY-SA has become the only reasonable choice.
.gov,.mil, and.edu are anomalies and should really be a subset of.us.
Country TLDs would work fine if the smaller countries kept better control over them but since they don't even there there tends to be issues.
You first sentence doesn't scan
By the time a bit of software are in use on the majority of Linux distribution I would expect there to be reliable third party sources talking about it.
And the reason "wikipedia is an invaluable starting point for the research you do" is that wikipedia deleted all the stuff ripped straight from myspace and press releases. It waited until people could provide slightly more than that (you got a review in a student newspaper? um well that will probably do for now).
Generally not acceptable to build the entire article on. Scientific publications means journals such as say tetrahedron letters. Most open source projects do not have their code appearing in such publications.
From the POV of the average highly involved wikipedian all they are seeing here is a demonstration of a painful lack of knowledge about Wikipedia by the commentators.
Heh even the choice of the word "moderators" is somewhat problematical.
Not at all. Technicaly wikipedia would consider trifluorinated biphenyl based liquid crystals notable (even if is somewhat unlikely that anyone would write an article on the things) because they get a reasonable number of mentions in journals. I doubt they have much mainstream media coverage. There is no shortage of books that would be considered reliable sources. A lot of specialist magazines would qualify.
What is and isn't a reliable source is a rather complicated question. Wikipedia begins to cover the question at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
Or people can wait 30 days before writing an article. Normaly the AP wire report and a couple of follow up articles will get you enough stuff to make a reasonable start.
Problem is there are rather a lot of open source projects with a slight lack of reliable third party sources. Throw in the problem of the number of articles on open source projects writen by fans to the point where they are painfuly baised and a certian level of atrition is to be expected.
With the level of abuse the existing DMCA protects that is somewhat unlikely. Any change that lowers the requirments in countering takedowns will likely also narrow the definition of ISP.
I suspect it is to allow them to use things like youtube screenshots in ads or create their own "mashups" of youtube content without haveing to worry too much about copyright.
That particular term though does cause issues if you want to upload something derived from someone elses's copyleft material.
Bollocks. Under UK law you have a number citizen's arrest powers which allow you to use reasonable force to detain suspects. The problems kick in when people start to lie about their motives and what they did and when the use of force becomes seriously excessive.
Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway.
Various surveys have shown that when people are asked what the penalty should be for various crimes they tend to chose below the current average court penalty.
Not quite. The state controller isn't a programer he only knows what he is told by the programers and system operators. The programers can only answer the questions they are asked. They also have an interest in seeing it takes as long as posible. So allowing for various middle managers the question that is actualy answered is not "how long will this take?" but "What is the longest time this can be made to take useing halfway legit methods?".
End result is that the state controller can quite safely say that it will take months without outright lying.
Slashdot Mirror
Durring the cold war tapping the otherside's undersea cables was worthwhile because the traffic wasn't always encrypted.
It may well be the case that that would not be possible without a law change and those take time.
Yes and no. A lot go for the equivalent of a no commercial use license. In other cases there is significant amounts of PD material around (crown copyright expired for example) but no one is prepared to pay the cost of digitalising.
Most European systems are something of a mess in this area but a DMCA style take down notice would probably be considered due notice and ignoring it unless you are ready to go to court would be a bad idea.
Indeed but compare wikipedia traffic levels to flickr.
Red hat only produce a fairly small percentage of GPL (or even linux) code. Wikipedia is a massively high percentage of GFDL material. Other than wikipedia there are a few wikipedia inspired wikis and a few software manuals. To get the same level of impact with the GPL you would need every linux, KDE, and Gnome coders (and then some) to demand a change. Indeed it could be argued that one of the problems this fixes is that we no longer have a situation where GFDL usage is hopelessly unbalanced in the direction of one project. Of course CC is going to end up rather unbalanced but not nearly to the same extent. There are other players in the CC world who if they cannot match wikipedia are at least within an order of magnitude (or at most 2).
Except this took years to sort out. It could have been done in a far shorter time.
There are various bits of GFDL stuff that have invariant sections so can't really be switched to CC-BY-SA.
While it is technically true that most of the problems of the GFDL could be fixed by improving the GFDL and creating the GSFDL the FSF has shown little inclination to do this. Remember 1)GFDL is not a free license (it contains rather a lot of invariant sections as well as deliberate ones) 2)It is unusable for images in many contexts. Postcards say. 3)even for text it is highly problematical using GFDL text with a computer program is not easy. This is not a case of CC supporters trying to knock the FSF. In fact a number of the supporters of this move either dislike or do not entirely trust CC. The problem is the FSF has proven either unable or unwilling to produce a viable free content license with the result that a switch to CC-BY-SA has become the only reasonable choice.
.gov, .mil, and .edu are anomalies and should really be a subset of .us.
Country TLDs would work fine if the smaller countries kept better control over them but since they don't even there there tends to be issues.
You first sentence doesn't scan By the time a bit of software are in use on the majority of Linux distribution I would expect there to be reliable third party sources talking about it.
And the reason "wikipedia is an invaluable starting point for the research you do" is that wikipedia deleted all the stuff ripped straight from myspace and press releases. It waited until people could provide slightly more than that (you got a review in a student newspaper? um well that will probably do for now).
Generally not acceptable to build the entire article on. Scientific publications means journals such as say tetrahedron letters. Most open source projects do not have their code appearing in such publications.
From the POV of the average highly involved wikipedian all they are seeing here is a demonstration of a painful lack of knowledge about Wikipedia by the commentators. Heh even the choice of the word "moderators" is somewhat problematical.
Not at all. Technicaly wikipedia would consider trifluorinated biphenyl based liquid crystals notable (even if is somewhat unlikely that anyone would write an article on the things) because they get a reasonable number of mentions in journals. I doubt they have much mainstream media coverage. There is no shortage of books that would be considered reliable sources. A lot of specialist magazines would qualify. What is and isn't a reliable source is a rather complicated question. Wikipedia begins to cover the question at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
Or people can wait 30 days before writing an article. Normaly the AP wire report and a couple of follow up articles will get you enough stuff to make a reasonable start.
Did you provide reliable third party sources to back up your claims? And who would you suggest should make decisions as to deletion?
Yeah problem is that if we keep articles on people like that people tend to complain that well wikipedia is being "mean" to living people.
While you can relist things on AFD it generaly get progressively harder to get a delete outcome.
Problem is there are rather a lot of open source projects with a slight lack of reliable third party sources. Throw in the problem of the number of articles on open source projects writen by fans to the point where they are painfuly baised and a certian level of atrition is to be expected.
With the level of abuse the existing DMCA protects that is somewhat unlikely. Any change that lowers the requirments in countering takedowns will likely also narrow the definition of ISP.
I suspect it is to allow them to use things like youtube screenshots in ads or create their own "mashups" of youtube content without haveing to worry too much about copyright. That particular term though does cause issues if you want to upload something derived from someone elses's copyleft material.
Bollocks. Under UK law you have a number citizen's arrest powers which allow you to use reasonable force to detain suspects. The problems kick in when people start to lie about their motives and what they did and when the use of force becomes seriously excessive. Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway. Various surveys have shown that when people are asked what the penalty should be for various crimes they tend to chose below the current average court penalty.
Not quite. The state controller isn't a programer he only knows what he is told by the programers and system operators. The programers can only answer the questions they are asked. They also have an interest in seeing it takes as long as posible. So allowing for various middle managers the question that is actualy answered is not "how long will this take?" but "What is the longest time this can be made to take useing halfway legit methods?". End result is that the state controller can quite safely say that it will take months without outright lying.
Wikipedia doesn't have that much Theora content yet so if this is going to become more universal more work on the content side is probably needed.