Forum:CC licensing

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > CC licensing
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 November 2018 by IsobelJ.

I noticed this site is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, however it incorporates a significant amount of content from Wikia, which was CC-BY-SA (no NC). I understand that CC licenses can sometimes be confusing. I also understand that Jagex and/or Wierd Gloop executives may want to prevent re-use of new content by Wikia and/or to forbid ads. However, my understanding of CC licenses is that content licensed under some terms (Wikia's CC-BY-SA in this case) can only be combined with content licensed under less restrictive terms (i.e., not CC-BY-NC-SA in this case).

15 How does NC affect mashups?

Works that are licensed under CC-BY-SA (Attribution, Share-Alike) license can only be combined and used with works that bear the same license or the freer license type CC-BY (Attribution).
In fact, however, many license combinations are not compatible, especially NC licenses cannot be combined with other licenses that do not have this restriction.

Paul Klimpel, Why a non-commercial clause often won't serve your needs (, Wikimedia Deutchland)

Did any practicing lawyers well-versed in CC licensing consult and advise on the selection of this wiki's license?


I think you may have to change. --Saftzie (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey! You raise a very good point about the invalidity of SA to NC-SA mashups. You may have done this already, but take a look at which goes into more detail about the intricacies of the license change. The relevant part is:

"If a revision is a "derivative work" of a prior revision, it should be considered to be re-licensed from its previous license to the license aforementioned unless the prior license expressly disallows such re-licensing. In this case, the new revision is licensed under the same license as the previous revision."

For works that are derivative of a Wikia revision under CC-BY-SA, because that license does not allow sharing under a more restrictive non-commercial license, they stay under their original license. Any new articles, however, are under CC-BY-SA-NC.

And yes, we did bring in outside counsel that specializes in intellectual property law, although not specifically (at that time) Creative Commons.

At this stage, I think the current licensing scheme is permissible, if a bit unintentionally confusing. ʞooɔ 17:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Let me be blunt. The whole point of SA is that derivative works must be licensed under the same terms. You don't get to pick which parts of the original license you get to keep and which to discard, unless you are the original author, so "additional terms apply" don't apply and "considered to be re-licensed" is in violation of BY-SA. When we edit, the legal disclaimer says "you agree to release any text you add under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 License," but unless someone is creating an entirely new page with completely original content, they can't legally agree to that when the previous content was "BY-SA." I really suggest you get a lawyer who knows CC. --Saftzie (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Derivative works from CC-BY-SA are being licensed under the same terms as before, as the license states. Recall that this license also covers derivative works outside of CC-BY-SA. To the extent there's an issue here, I think it's that the disclaimer states that contributions are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0, when in reality the release depends on whether it's a derivative work of a Wikia revision. That's something we should change (and I don't think a whole lot of thought was put into that disclaimer), but the underlying license on Meta:Copyrights is valid and enforceable. ʞooɔ 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You can say they're being licensed under the same terms, but then what's 'If a revision is a "derivative work" of a prior revision, it should be considered to be re-licensed from its previous license' if not an outright violation of that previous license? At best, the footer should say "Some content on this site is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Some content on this site is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0." At best, the edit disclaimer should say "you agree to release any text you add under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 License or under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, depending on the article. You further agree to grant Jagex an unlimited license to use your edit for commercial purposes without compensation or liability." And I still think you have problems. --Saftzie (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel you're missing the next part of your quote -- "unless the prior license expressly disallows such re-licensing". Since CC-BY-SA disallows relicensing to add the non-commercial clause, none of what you're quoting is applicable to CC-BY-SA.
I think we will change the disclaimer though, because as currently stated it's simply not correct. ʞooɔ 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't miss it. There's no time "prior licensing" would not apply, so the entire assertion of re-licensing is just wrong. --Saftzie (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
"There's no time "prior licensing" would not apply" - this is simply not true. New revisions, or for content that derives from a license that allows relicensing to CC-BY-NC-SA, would fall under this relicensing scheme. There's more at play here than just Wikia's old revisions and new things that we contribute. ʞooɔ 01:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA does not allow relicensing to CC-BY-NC-SA even for new revisions. --Saftzie (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - From my understanding, the licensing is as follows:

  • Pages that were not created on the fork are licensed as CC-BY-SA as are any edits to those pages prior to the fork.
  • Any new edits made to pages that were created prior to the fork are licensed under CC-BY-SA.
  • Any new pages created and their subsequent edits are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.

This is because you cannot change licenses from CC-BY-SA to any of it's more restrictive counterparts for the content as is or it's derivatives. However, there's a caveat to that because as the wiki evolves it becomes difficult to prove that new content is not based on older content under the 'old' license. Is there something I've missed in the above? cqm talk 08:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fairly accurate summary of the legalese on Essentially, new revisions to an article that are not a derivative of a previous revision (for example, someone completely rewrote the page) would be considered to be licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA rather than CC-BY-SA. This is automatically true for new articles (provided the creator of the article didn't copy their content from Wikia). Where a revision is a derivative, it should be relicensed under CC-BY-NC-SA - if that is not possible (in the case of CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY-NC-SA), then it is licensed under the same terms as the original license (e.g a derivative of a CC-BY-SA revision would be licensed under CC-BY-SA). jayden 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we have any way of tracking which articles are under which license? cqm talk 15:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't be too difficult to generate a mostly correct list and put it somewhere on the meta wiki or whatever. Articles created prior to 4 October licensed under CC-BY-SA, articles created after are licensed by CC-BY-NC-SA, articles in Update, Transcript, ect namespaces are copyright of Jagex. I don't expect there to be many exceptions to this, it's very rare that a page is completely rewritten without any part of it derived from the original content. Whatever small number of exceptions there are could be manually corrected. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 15:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Closed - it seems that the question has been answered. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 08:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)