Forum:CC BY-SA 4.0

Index → The Panopticon → CC BY-SA 4.0

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening post

Are you ready for the trip of a lifetime?

Hey folks! Now that we've settled into our new home, I think it's time to bring up what's been the top priority in my discussion agenda. I'd like to formally propose we upgrade our license from CC BY-SA 3.0 (Unported) to CC BY-SA 4.0. Specifically, the version Wikipedia uses, which adds a clause to waive database rights (which only apply in certain jurisdictions).

For anyone who needs catching up, CC BY-SA is a Share Alike license, which allows other online communities (or private persons) which use that same license — or a more recent version — to use that material, so long as sufficient attribution is given.

What this means for us

CC BY-SA 3.0 is forward compatible with 4.0, but CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backward compatible. This means we are free to upgrade our license, and to continue to adapt/import work from wikis with the 3.0 license (with correct attribution!)...

But wikis still operating on CC BY-SA 3.0 (such as Fandom wikis) will not be able to copy work from us anymore until or unless they upgrade their license as well.

"What? You've never upgraded your license before?"

Apart from some broad accessibility benefits in how the newer license is written more clearly (and translated), there's a couple things we need to explain:

1. The bar for attribution is a little higher. In cases where the full page history is not present (admins can achieve this by importing page histories), you now need to indicate what you've modified from the original material when using an external CC-BY-SA resource.
   • Whenever possible (read: pretty much always), a URL leading to the relevant page history is required. (This contains all the contributors' names, their modifications... and that website's link to their own public license, like we've got in the footer.)
2. There is increased flexibility, legally, in cases where attribution was fumbled on accident by users on our wiki. In the case of insufficient attribution, we will now have 30 days to correct the issue.

By upgrading to 4.0, we're joining Wikipedia in moving forward, not looking back. Waiving database rights means access to use material from Tardis is fair and equal, regardless of governmental jurisdiction. And we'll now be taking that extra step in giving full attribution, like we've always been cautious about, and expecting the same from other communities.

Explaining the upgrade

As mentioned, since our current license is forward compatible, it's perfectly compliant to upgrade to 4.0. Contributions from before the change is officially made will still be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, but going forward, all new edits will fall under our new license.

We're going to have to be strict about enforcing T:DON'T COPY, of course (and it's recommended everyone actually reads the text of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which I've only summarised here). Some lenience can also be expected as everyone adjusts to the updated requirements (and for new users, of course), but it's important to correct afterwards once it's pointed out.

Once we give the word to our sysadmins to update the license in the software, and update our disclaimers and copyright page, these new rules and protections will be in effect.

Please ask all your questions below, and an admin (likely Bongo) will get back to you.

Please let us know what you think. This is a really simple step, but a big one nonetheless. These are exciting times to be a Tardis Wiki editor.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 09:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comments or concerns

My largest concern about this is the higher bar for edit attribution, which will, as I understand it, be significantly higher than it was previously. Take the following hypothetical: Say I wanted to split off Ninth Doctor#Psychological profile into Ninth Doctor/Psychological profile, which is, in fact, a thing which I have been doing erratically every now and then, currently I would only have to link to Ninth Doctor, and by extension the revision history, and say "I copied the edits from here". From my understanding, under the new licence I would have to hunt through the twenty-year revision history to search for every single contributor who edited that section, then list them all in the revision history. This is fairly inconvenient, to say the least.

(Also, I will note it feels a little petty to prevent editors on the Fandom wiki from copying over edits from our wiki; it feels a bit contra to the general spirit of publishing things under CCBYSA in the first place, even if I agree with the general sentiment. However, these are my personal feelings, and have no impact on the actual decision). Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is required. If you link to the edit history, it contains all of the contributors to that page, you don't have to hunt down everyone that contributed to that particular section, because it's already in the edit history.

As to your other concern regarding preventing copying by fandom, I share the sentiment, but I think the improved rigour in attribution makes this worth it. Danochy ☎ 10:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so it's just the same as the old one, then? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia addresses this concern at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content:

"To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)"

So that's not necessary, given page histories. Hope this helps.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. In that case, I support the notion, although I'm still not quite sure what the difference is between the two versions attribution-wise. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This page provides a detailed overview of the differences between versions. Specifically, the "detailed attribution comparison chart" clearly shows the differences in how we would attribute. Danochy ☎ 10:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)