the op is no longer correct. the article has been updated to say that wikipedia will be cc-compatible, not that it will switch to it. to quote:
Contrary to the old title of this post (thanks to Larry for the clarification) Wikipedia is not switching to CC. It actually made a deal allowing the community to relicense the content of the wikis under a BY-SA license. So it's now up to the Wikipedians to choose whether they do or not.
this is a bit of legal-hair-splitting (standard ianal disclaimer), but it does mean that there there shouldn't be any legal issues with converting prior content.
also it seems that the cc by-sa license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ is basically equivalent to the gfdl. it is not "public-domain"ing the content, nor is it "bsd"ing the content. it just seems to make it a less-software-centric license. (anyone else, please feel free to correct.)
i see this issue in the context of the following metaphor:
consider a pacifist living in a time of murder and chaos. this pacifist has two choices: (1) emerge outside without any weapons, and hope that his example will protect him from evil (2) emerge outside with a non-lethal weapon, and hope the weapon will protect him from evil.
choice (1) is simpler and idealistically cleaner. this pacifist realizes the vulnerability of his person, but sacrifices it for the absoluteness of the cause. it echoes the example that history teaches us (reaffirmed recently in the non-aggressive resistance of gandhi, martin luther king, walsea, etc.). it is the more pure approach, and almost mathematic in its logic.
choice (2) is contradictory -- even hypocritical. this pacifist fights the enemy but must do so with some of his devices (and, ironically, deliberately lesser versions of it). his approach calls to mind no laudable, recommended examples. it has no basis in any absolute or ideal principles, and is as logical as politics and compromise
choice (1) is the public domain. it does not believe in copyright, so it forswears all claim to it. it recognizes potential for closed-source/proprietary abuse, but it selflessly takes no action against it.
choice (2) is the gpl. it also does not believe in copyright, but uses copyright as a weapon against it. it allows no potential for closed-source/proprietary abuse, and fights to keep itself free.
now for the rub. i personally choose the gpl. to return to the metaphor, this is a time of murder and chaos. much like criminals and murderers, so too do self-serving companies and developers prowl for works that have value and are cheaply exploitable. releasing a work to the public domain would be like sending it out into the wild, naked and defenseless -- at the mercy of any to exploit it. i cannot practice a pacifism that will not resist the violent while they do as they please -- no matter how theoretically pure this principle may be. at least with the gpl, i make it just a little bit harder for the others to create their closed-private-copyrighted works.
anyway, this is a metaphor. as warned about it may be contrived and empty. but it makes sense to me.
this post published under the "free art license". (no public domain for you!)
Re:I'd just like to say,
on
Freedb.org Ending
·
· Score: 4, Informative
someone mod parent up. horar/freedb2's motives are not in full disclosure. hopefully not bad etiquette to post links to digg, but the comments are worth reading.
the mozilla public license 1.1 is just as complicated and bogged down with legalities as the gpl. while i'm sure many developers want to just stick their heads in the code and create software, in an era of patent-trolling-litigiousness, they might as well be sticking their heads in the sand. IANAL, but i would prefer a license that directly addresses legalities arising from patent infringement claims, than a tried-and-true one that neglects mention of it entirely. and any license (gpl, mozilla, etc.) that tries to counter potential legal issues will no longer be plain, easy to comprehend, or concise: such is the nature of the legal Beast.
i am not saying one should use the new gpl. there are obviously other implications that determine a license's suitability to its project. however, adhering to a license, simply because its simpler, is not a safe approach. once upon a time, i'm sure early software developers regarded the new MIT software license as injecting unnecessary legality into their software projects. sadly, these licenses have since become the norm, and their works would've since fallen prey to copyright violations or litigations concerning warrantability, liability, etc.. at the risk of FUD-mongering, i contend that the same may well be true of present licenses that do not handle the patent threat.
as some earlier posts have indicated, the issue is not whether or not facts are copyrightable, or compilation of facts are copyrightable. it is whether or not identities can be used in the promulgation of these statistics/facts. mlb would not argue your right to publish that the modern-day home run record is 73 and it was set by a san francisco outfielder in 2001. mlb (or mlb players association) would argue whether or not you can use barry bonds's names in conjunction with the statistic, because the use of his name may be tantamount to his "sponsoring" the fact's publication. many non-licensed (read: non-EA) baseball games cannot list the names of players, but must instead resort to fictional names, and rely on fan-sites to link the statistics with the names. keep in mind that in this case, the facts are legal and distributed with the game (at-bats, on base percentage, slugging percentage, hits allowed, walks allowed, etc.). only the player identities are withheld.
i still think mlb's position is utterly ridiculous, and hope that (a) the case makes it to litigation, and (b) their position will be struck down. however (a) will probably not happen because the plaintiff (a corporate entity bent on producing profits) will probably settle for a reduced fee or (b) the increasingly-conservative court approves mlb's position and goes on to encourage more nightmarish scenarios that other slashdotters have been posting (a la Grokster).
disclaimer: barry bonds has in no way sponsored this post, nor does the use of his name in any way imply his sponsorship of my post getting a "5, Insightful" rating.
the article does not draw any correlation between mainframe programming, software, or the failures of the system.
a major flaw, according to the article was that: "The whirring baggage carts, programmed to pick up and drop off bags in a perfectly coordinated ballet, often just tipped over and dumped their loads."
it also speaks vaguely about some "lizard tongue conveyor" whose failures would hardly seems the domain of software development.
the denver baggage system fiasco sounds more like a failure in regular engineering, or at best, robotics programming. i hardly see why mainframe architecture, or any piece of software code, should be blamed as the primary culprit.
Slashdot Mirror
okay. reread the op and somehow missed the word "compatible". oops.
the op is no longer correct. the article has been updated to say that wikipedia will be cc-compatible, not that it will switch to it. to quote:
this is a bit of legal-hair-splitting (standard ianal disclaimer), but it does mean that there there shouldn't be any legal issues with converting prior content.
also it seems that the cc by-sa license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ is basically equivalent to the gfdl. it is not "public-domain"ing the content, nor is it "bsd"ing the content. it just seems to make it a less-software-centric license. (anyone else, please feel free to correct.)
i see this issue in the context of the following metaphor:
consider a pacifist living in a time of murder and chaos. this pacifist has two choices: (1) emerge outside without any weapons, and hope that his example will protect him from evil (2) emerge outside with a non-lethal weapon, and hope the weapon will protect him from evil.
choice (1) is simpler and idealistically cleaner. this pacifist realizes the vulnerability of his person, but sacrifices it for the absoluteness of the cause. it echoes the example that history teaches us (reaffirmed recently in the non-aggressive resistance of gandhi, martin luther king, walsea, etc.). it is the more pure approach, and almost mathematic in its logic.
choice (2) is contradictory -- even hypocritical. this pacifist fights the enemy but must do so with some of his devices (and, ironically, deliberately lesser versions of it). his approach calls to mind no laudable, recommended examples. it has no basis in any absolute or ideal principles, and is as logical as politics and compromise
choice (1) is the public domain. it does not believe in copyright, so it forswears all claim to it. it recognizes potential for closed-source/proprietary abuse, but it selflessly takes no action against it.
choice (2) is the gpl. it also does not believe in copyright, but uses copyright as a weapon against it. it allows no potential for closed-source/proprietary abuse, and fights to keep itself free.
now for the rub. i personally choose the gpl. to return to the metaphor, this is a time of murder and chaos. much like criminals and murderers, so too do self-serving companies and developers prowl for works that have value and are cheaply exploitable. releasing a work to the public domain would be like sending it out into the wild, naked and defenseless -- at the mercy of any to exploit it. i cannot practice a pacifism that will not resist the violent while they do as they please -- no matter how theoretically pure this principle may be. at least with the gpl, i make it just a little bit harder for the others to create their closed-private-copyrighted works.
anyway, this is a metaphor. as warned about it may be contrived and empty. but it makes sense to me.
this post published under the "free art license". (no public domain for you!)
someone mod parent up. horar/freedb2's motives are not in full disclosure. hopefully not bad etiquette to post links to digg, but the comments are worth reading.
n d own
source of parent post: http://digg.com/software/freedb_s_future_uncertai
more comments on freedb: http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/freedb_is_closing_
at any rate, there seems to be more to horar's involvement than originally stated.
the mozilla public license 1.1 is just as complicated and bogged down with legalities as the gpl. while i'm sure many developers want to just stick their heads in the code and create software, in an era of patent- trolling- litigiousness, they might as well be sticking their heads in the sand. IANAL, but i would prefer a license that directly addresses legalities arising from patent infringement claims, than a tried-and-true one that neglects mention of it entirely. and any license (gpl, mozilla, etc.) that tries to counter potential legal issues will no longer be plain, easy to comprehend, or concise: such is the nature of the legal Beast.
i am not saying one should use the new gpl. there are obviously other implications that determine a license's suitability to its project. however, adhering to a license, simply because its simpler, is not a safe approach. once upon a time, i'm sure early software developers regarded the new MIT software license as injecting unnecessary legality into their software projects. sadly, these licenses have since become the norm, and their works would've since fallen prey to copyright violations or litigations concerning warrantability, liability, etc.. at the risk of FUD-mongering, i contend that the same may well be true of present licenses that do not handle the patent threat.
as some earlier posts have indicated, the issue is not whether or not facts are copyrightable, or compilation of facts are copyrightable. it is whether or not identities can be used in the promulgation of these statistics/facts. mlb would not argue your right to publish that the modern-day home run record is 73 and it was set by a san francisco outfielder in 2001. mlb (or mlb players association) would argue whether or not you can use barry bonds's names in conjunction with the statistic, because the use of his name may be tantamount to his "sponsoring" the fact's publication. many non-licensed (read: non-EA) baseball games cannot list the names of players, but must instead resort to fictional names, and rely on fan-sites to link the statistics with the names. keep in mind that in this case, the facts are legal and distributed with the game (at-bats, on base percentage, slugging percentage, hits allowed, walks allowed, etc.). only the player identities are withheld.
:)
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?s=faae4d4fd2d9b b9ef51c54c1852d76cd&showtopic=2966
i still think mlb's position is utterly ridiculous, and hope that (a) the case makes it to litigation, and (b) their position will be struck down. however (a) will probably not happen because the plaintiff (a corporate entity bent on producing profits) will probably settle for a reduced fee or (b) the increasingly-conservative court approves mlb's position and goes on to encourage more nightmarish scenarios that other slashdotters have been posting (a la Grokster).
finally, here is the take from a good die-hard baseball fan site, with lots of sabremetric statistically minded fans. red-sox fan affiliation, so yankee fans may want to avert their eyes.
disclaimer: barry bonds has in no way sponsored this post, nor does the use of his name in any way imply his sponsorship of my post getting a "5, Insightful" rating.
the article does not draw any correlation between mainframe programming, software, or the failures of the system. a major flaw, according to the article was that: "The whirring baggage carts, programmed to pick up and drop off bags in a perfectly coordinated ballet, often just tipped over and dumped their loads." it also speaks vaguely about some "lizard tongue conveyor" whose failures would hardly seems the domain of software development. the denver baggage system fiasco sounds more like a failure in regular engineering, or at best, robotics programming. i hardly see why mainframe architecture, or any piece of software code, should be blamed as the primary culprit.