License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

Johannes Beigel-2
Am 10.10.2008 um 21:22 schrieb Erik Moeller:
> 2008/10/10 Derbeth <[hidden email]>:
>> I wonder about the legal aspects. In my opinion, when you create a  
>> ready-to-print version,
>> you have to attach the text of GFDL license to it - directly, not  
>> as a link. Like it is done in
>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Image:LaTeX.pdf.

As Erik wrote: This is already implemented (either a title of an  
article or a URL to some license text can be set in  
LocalSettings.php), but it's currently not configured.

>> Secondly, current version of the tool does a plagiarism - beacause  
>> it does not mention
>> image authors and does not provide any mean (like by making images  
>> clickable) to check
>> these authors.
>
> Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Tricky to do this automatically
> since it's all wiki-text with templates, but we'll investigate a
> solution here.



We'd highly appreciate input from the community regarding this topic!


The printed books from PediaPress contain a list of figures where the  
license of each image is listed, together with the URL to the image  
description page. As some kind of "hotfix" this solution could be  
implemented in the PDF export of the Collection extension, too. But  
this doesn't really solve the problem.

We think it's more of a technical/software thing, so I cross-posted  
(and set Reply-To) to Wikitech-l.

In our opinion, license management/handling must be a core feature of  
MediaWiki, because the software is explicitely developed for the  
collaborative distribution of free content. Licenses of the containing  
articles and images should not be represented via some agreed-upon  
convention but via structured (and machine-readable) information,  
available for each relevant object in the wiki.

Some information that would be desired:

- Full (official) name of the license(s).
- Whether the full text of the license has to be included or a  
reference sufficient.
- Reference to the full text of the license(s) (in some rigidly  
defined format like wikitext).
- Whether attribution is required. If so: The list of required  
attributions.

So, basically all the information that's required to check if it's  
possible to take some part of the MediaWiki and use it somewhere else  
and all the information that has to be included in that other place.  
This information could be made accessible via MediaWiki API, but  
ideally it's contained in the wikitext and/or XHTML, too.

All this could be handled via microformats, even inside of templates,  
but the main point is that any kind of new technique has to be  
enforced, ideally via MediaWiki software itself: In the commons wikis  
there are some conventions that can be used in software by people/
companies like us (although we have to work with hacks and  
workarounds), but oftentimes, in wikis with smaller communities this  
information doesn't even exist at all.

-- Johannes Beigel


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

Johannes Beigel-2
BTW: PediaPress has a stand on the Frankfurter Buchmesse (Frankfurt  
Book Fair), booth E427 in hall 4.2. We'd be really happy to meet  
people from the community to talk about all kinds of MediaWiki related  
stuff.

So, if some of you are there and can make it... we're looking forward  
to meet you!

-- Johannes Beigel


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Textbook-l] License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Johannes Beigel-2
2008/10/14 Johannes Beigel <[hidden email]>:

>>> Secondly, current version of the tool does a plagiarism - beacause
>>> it does not mention
>>> image authors and does not provide any mean (like by making images
>>> clickable) to check
>>> these authors.
>>
>> Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Tricky to do this automatically
>> since it's all wiki-text with templates, but we'll investigate a
>> solution here.
>
> We'd highly appreciate input from the community regarding this topic!
>
> The printed books from PediaPress contain a list of figures where the
> license of each image is listed, together with the URL to the image
> description page. As some kind of "hotfix" this solution could be
> implemented in the PDF export of the Collection extension, too. But
> this doesn't really solve the problem.
>
> We think it's more of a technical/software thing, so I cross-posted
> (and set Reply-To) to Wikitech-l.
>
> In our opinion, license management/handling must be a core feature of
> MediaWiki, because the software is explicitely developed for the
> collaborative distribution of free content. Licenses of the containing
> articles and images should not be represented via some agreed-upon
> convention but via structured (and machine-readable) information,
> available for each relevant object in the wiki.
>
> Some information that would be desired:
>
> - Full (official) name of the license(s).
> - Whether the full text of the license has to be included or a
> reference sufficient.
> - Reference to the full text of the license(s) (in some rigidly
> defined format like wikitext).
> - Whether attribution is required. If so: The list of required
> attributions.
>
> So, basically all the information that's required to check if it's
> possible to take some part of the MediaWiki and use it somewhere else
> and all the information that has to be included in that other place.
> This information could be made accessible via MediaWiki API, but
> ideally it's contained in the wikitext and/or XHTML, too.

Because different wikis implement licenses in different ways (ie there
are no naming conventions for license templates), I am not sure this
license information would belong in MediaWiki core. But I think that
definitely Wikimedia Commons, and perhaps other Wikimedia wikis that
accept freely licensed uploads, should work on providing a "community
API" layer. My thinking behind this is that the communities build a
lot of structure into their content via templates or categories or
whatever. It makes sense to provide an API to stop every third party
user having to reinvent the wheel.

On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API>

In particular this contains some of the license info you mentioned.
e.g. below is the info for the GFDL.

GFDL

full_name
    GNU Free Documentation License
attach_full_license_text
    1
attribute_author
    1
keep_under_same_license
    1
keep_under_similar_license
    0
license_logo_url
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Heckert_GNU_white.svg/64px-Heckert_GNU_white.svg.png
license_info_url
    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
license_text_url
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt

The "Commons API" also has an author field.
<http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php?image=Sa-warthog.jpg&meta>
I think at the moment this is being taken from the {{information}}
template. You can see in this example it includes a wiki link; it
should have already been resolved to a full URL, so there is
definitely still work to be done.

I would be interested to know if further development of the Commons
API would be "heading in the right direction" for PediaPress.

cheers,
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

Johannes Beigel-2
On 29.01.2009, at 13:48, Brianna Laugher wrote:
 > Because different wikis implement licenses in different ways (ie  
there
 > are no naming conventions for license templates), I am not sure this
 > license information would belong in MediaWiki core.

It could be opt-in for each wiki, but MediaWiki API is already there
and would be a perfect way to make this information available.

Of course one has to think about the kind of data and the format --
e.g. Magnus has, and you mention:

 > On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end:
 > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API>

We've been aware of this page and Magnus' implementation, and we think
it looks really good!

The information is (AFAIK) scraped from the rendered XHTML of
articles. This could be done in a less error-prone way (and more
efficiently) if the data would be stored and accessed via database in
some way. Of course this would require some discussion, formal
decisions and code changes. But as I stated in an earlier post: I
think MediaWiki is so widely used by people who want to share and
collaborate on free content, that it's not too farfetched to build
some "license infrastracture" into the software itself.

 > I would be interested to know if further development of the Commons
 > API would be "heading in the right direction" for PediaPress.

It's definitely heading in the right direction! It should become "more
official" though. :-)

-- Johannes


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)

Brianna Laugher
2009/1/30 Johannes Beigel <[hidden email]>:

> On 29.01.2009, at 13:48, Brianna Laugher wrote:
>  > On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end:
>  > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API>
>
> We've been aware of this page and Magnus' implementation, and we think
> it looks really good!
>
> The information is (AFAIK) scraped from the rendered XHTML of
> articles. This could be done in a less error-prone way (and more
> efficiently) if the data would be stored and accessed via database in
> some way. Of course this would require some discussion, formal
> decisions and code changes. But as I stated in an earlier post: I
> think MediaWiki is so widely used by people who want to share and
> collaborate on free content, that it's not too farfetched to build
> some "license infrastracture" into the software itself.

I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big
change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm
for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and
completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to get to
point of functionality.

It may be a good idea to try and build the Commons API to mimic the
MediaWiki API, imagining that in the future such information will be
available via that. So then hopefully for now people could use the
Commons API, and in the future switch to the MediaWiki API by just
changing the API URL, and all their queries could stay the same.

How does that sound? Other ideas about how to approach it are welcome...

cheers
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Brion Vibber-3
On 1/29/09 4:55 PM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big
> change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm
> for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and
> completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to get to
> point of functionality.

/me shows enthusiasm :)

-- brion

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Daniel Kinzler
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
>
> I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big
> change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm
> for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and
> completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to get to
> point of functionality.

Guys, before re-inventing several wheels, please look at what we already have.

Please have a look at
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tag_categories>, which defines a way
to make license tags machine readable. Using that scheme, it would be easy to
build a script on the toolserver that delivers metadata in a machine readable
form. No need for screen scraping.

Also, please consider <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RDF> which
provides a way for mediawiki to serve machine readable metadata about anything
and everything. It would be easy to integrate it into license tags. It has been
around for years, all it needs is a little push from the community and some code
review.

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.

Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more
sense to have human readable text. As in not only English ?
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/1/30 Daniel Kinzler <[hidden email]>

> Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> >
> > I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big
> > change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm
> > for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and
> > completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to get to
> > point of functionality.
>
> Guys, before re-inventing several wheels, please look at what we already
> have.
>
> Please have a look at
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tag_categories>, which defines
> a way
> to make license tags machine readable. Using that scheme, it would be easy
> to
> build a script on the toolserver that delivers metadata in a machine
> readable
> form. No need for screen scraping.
>
> Also, please consider <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RDF> which
> provides a way for mediawiki to serve machine readable metadata about
> anything
> and everything. It would be easy to integrate it into license tags. It has
> been
> around for years, all it needs is a little push from the community and some
> code
> review.
>
> -- daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Daniel Kinzler
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> Hoi,
> There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
> other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
> is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.

SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but I expect it will take
considerably more time to review that and get it usable on wmf sites.

> Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more
> sense to have human readable text. As in not only English ?

Sure, but I don't see the connection. The RDF extension just adds the machine
readable stuff to the human readable stuff we already have. It's basically for
annotating templates, and retrieving that annotation.

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When we invest time in implementing time in the RDF extension, the chances
of the eventual support of Semantic MediaWiki are severely diminished. It
may take less time to get the RDF extension in shape, this is your hunch,
but it is a choice only made because it is quick. Not because it provides
the most benefits.

What is a translation but another type of annotation ?
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/1/30 Daniel Kinzler <[hidden email]>

> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > Hoi,
> > There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and
> the
> > other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its
> usability
> > is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
>
> SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but I expect it will
> take
> considerably more time to review that and get it usable on wmf sites.
>
> > Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more
> > sense to have human readable text. As in not only English ?
>
> Sure, but I don't see the connection. The RDF extension just adds the
> machine
> readable stuff to the human readable stuff we already have. It's basically
> for
> annotating templates, and retrieving that annotation.
>
> -- daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License information

Daniel Kinzler
> What is a translation but another type of annotation ?
> Thanks,

This *Could* be modeled like that in theory. But I don't see an easy way to
implement this with a low cost of transition. Basically, it would require
license info to be not handled via templates at all.

I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also because it causes new problems,
such as the question how to introduce new license tags, etc.

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l