Licensing interim update

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licensing interim update

Erik Moeller-4
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:

* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a feel on
prevalent opinions regarding some of the attribution-relevant
questions from a sample of contributors.
* Our timeline will need to be pushed forward a bit, in part because
of this, but also for a number of other unrelated reasons. That said,
we want to move forward fairly aggressively given the constraints of
the re-licensing clause.

I think it's important to note that most other aspects of the proposed
re-licensing have turned out to be remarkably uncontroversial. I'm
very pleased that we've found so much common ground already. Even on
the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
very similarly to our own.

The fundamentally divisive question is whether principles of web use
can be applied to some of the other real world use scenarios we've
encountered: DVD, print, spoken versions, etc. Our established
practices don't give us a huge amount of guidance in that matter,
though many past and present GFDL-based offline uses support the case
for stronger attribution, and when this hasn't been granted (as in the
case of the SOS Children's DVD), it turned out to be controversial.
Clearly, many people feel that these media lack the immediacy of
access to authorship information that the web medium provides.

An important counterpoint is that these media are among the ones which
are the most important to reach disadvantaged communities - people
without Internet access, blind users, etc. - and that any onerous
requirements are arguably going to diminish our ability to spread free
knowledge. So, there are moral arguments on both sides. Moreover, as
I've noted, many names only really have meaning in the context of web
presence in the first place.

A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
"reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to work
together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
implementations, and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
we don't have a better answer yet. I worry, in this scenario, about
instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well. And I want
to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
otherwise do so.

So, getting some more data on that question -- is a compromise
necessary and possible -- should IMO be the next steps, after which we
may revise our proposed attribution terms further. I hope that we'll
be able get some first survey data this week, and move quickly after
that.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Michael Snow-3
Erik Moeller wrote:

> A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
> never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
> has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
> "reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to work
> together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
> smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
> implementations, and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
> we don't have a better answer yet. I worry, in this scenario, about
> instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
> principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well.
I think it would help, when using algorithms or any form of "wikiblame"
system that might get implemented, to make that an explicit part of the
attribution documentation. For example, "Authors of the current version
of Article X, according to the wikiblame tool, include A, B, C, D, and
E, for additional details and a complete list of contributors see
http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article X&action=history."
(Where "current version" means whatever revision is being reproduced.
The language could easily be tweaked for derivative works.) Then if
there are any questions, people can refer to, examine, and potentially
improve the tool.

--Michael Snow


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

Re: Licensing interim update

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:

> A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
> never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
> has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
> "reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to work
> together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
> smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
> implementations, and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
> we don't have a better answer yet. I worry, in this scenario, about
> instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
> principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well. And I want
> to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
> nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
> attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
> that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
> actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
> otherwise do so.
>  

Firstly let me say that I couldn't find one word of your
posting that I disagreed with :-)

My hat is really off to you for putting everything so
pellucidly clearly and eloquently. And just to remove
all doubt, I am being entirely earnest here, this is not
sarcasm. Your posting really did you proud.

I do want to underscore that last sentence though,
just to clarify where I personally stand. My stance
has ever been that what we should not do is break
interoperability for a significant segment of jurisdictions
where our work could reasonably be expected to be
distributed to.

I do not hold that we should satisfy even the legal
requirements of all jurisdictions. I can easily
envision that there might be a really stupid law
somewhere, which made genuinely onerous
demands. I would certainly suggest in that case
that after careful consideration, WMF should
just flip them the bird, and say: grow up, smell
the internet age!

In fact personally I'd hope that Intellectual Property
laws around the world were much more internet age
savvy than they are at the present. But we needs
must live in the world we have got, and not the one
we would wish existed.

And just to very briefly recap what I have said about
my own jurisdiction; my understanding is that here
the laws are not that onerous, though they are a bit
quirkily different from other jurisdictions (surprise!).
We don't have fair dealing or fair use, but we do have
citation rights. And the Moral Rights provision of
inalienable "Paternity" to a work has a few "in the
fashion common to the field and in accordance with
good manners" outs to attribution in addition to
a (far too complex, IMO) set of labyrinthine considerations
as to what really is a "work" that one can have that
paternity right to. There is even an explicit concept
of "shared" paternity for collaborations, which would
in many cases fit wikipedia splendidly; though not
in the case of importing stuff previously published
elsewhere under a compatible license, for instance.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen









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

Re: Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> Even on
> the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
> for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
> are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
> apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
> very similarly to our own.

There is some disagreement over whether such a page history or author
credit page needs to be local, or if they can link to ours. Please
make sure you include that issue in your poll. (Personally, I would
prefer the former, but I won't strongly oppose the latter.)

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

Re: Licensing interim update

geni
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
> looks like, I want to briefly recap:
>
> * Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
> dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
> * I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a feel on
> prevalent opinions regarding some of the attribution-relevant
> questions from a sample of contributors.

Copyright law and the terms of CC-BY-SA are not subject to community opinion.
>
 Even on
> the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
> for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
> are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
> apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
> very similarly to our own.

As long as the credit page is hosted locally this would generally be
the case online yes.

> The fundamentally divisive question is whether principles of web use
> can be applied to some of the other real world use scenarios we've
> encountered: DVD, print, spoken versions, etc.

I think you are confused over what the principles of web use actually are.


> An important counterpoint is that these media are among the ones which
> are the most important to reach disadvantaged communities - people
> without Internet access, blind users, etc. - and that any onerous
> requirements are arguably going to diminish our ability to spread free
> knowledge. So, there are moral arguments on both sides. Moreover, as
> I've noted, many names only really have meaning in the context of web
> presence in the first place.

This isn't relevant to the legal position.

> commit us to work
> together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
> smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
> implementation,

Knocking out most of the bot flagged names (ram-bot probably qualifies
for credit although there are some complications there) and any edit
summery that mentions AWB would probably take care of that issue on
en.

>and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
> we don't have a better answer yet.

Again this isn't legal.

>I worry, in this scenario, about
> instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
> principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well.

"reasonable to the medium or means" you cannot go beyond that. About
the only thing you can do to enforce simplicity beyond the terms of
the license is to ban copyright notices (as in that unfortunate "keep
intact all copyright notices for the Work" statement).

>And I want
> to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
> nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
> attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
> that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
> actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
> otherwise do so.

You are optimistic. They could just sue the first refuser to think
that any statements beyond "reasonable to the medium or means" had any
legal validity.


--
geni

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Brian J Mingus
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can
get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
face and other content mediums do not.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:32 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> > Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
> > looks like, I want to briefly recap:
> >
> > * Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
> > dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
> > * I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a feel on
> > prevalent opinions regarding some of the attribution-relevant
> > questions from a sample of contributors.
>
> Copyright law and the terms of CC-BY-SA are not subject to community
> opinion.
> >
>  Even on
> > the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
> > for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
> > are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
> > apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
> > very similarly to our own.
>
> As long as the credit page is hosted locally this would generally be
> the case online yes.
>
> > The fundamentally divisive question is whether principles of web use
> > can be applied to some of the other real world use scenarios we've
> > encountered: DVD, print, spoken versions, etc.
>
> I think you are confused over what the principles of web use actually are.
>
>
> > An important counterpoint is that these media are among the ones which
> > are the most important to reach disadvantaged communities - people
> > without Internet access, blind users, etc. - and that any onerous
> > requirements are arguably going to diminish our ability to spread free
> > knowledge. So, there are moral arguments on both sides. Moreover, as
> > I've noted, many names only really have meaning in the context of web
> > presence in the first place.
>
> This isn't relevant to the legal position.
>
> > commit us to work
> > together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
> > smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
> > implementation,
>
> Knocking out most of the bot flagged names (ram-bot probably qualifies
> for credit although there are some complications there) and any edit
> summery that mentions AWB would probably take care of that issue on
> en.
>
> >and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
> > we don't have a better answer yet.
>
> Again this isn't legal.
>
> >I worry, in this scenario, about
> > instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
> > principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well.
>
> "reasonable to the medium or means" you cannot go beyond that. About
> the only thing you can do to enforce simplicity beyond the terms of
> the license is to ban copyright notices (as in that unfortunate "keep
> intact all copyright notices for the Work" statement).
>
> >And I want
> > to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
> > nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
> > attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
> > that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
> > actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
> > otherwise do so.
>
> You are optimistic. They could just sue the first refuser to think
> that any statements beyond "reasonable to the medium or means" had any
> legal validity.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton
2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
> license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can
> get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
> face and other content mediums do not.

We can't relicense GFDL works under a license which isn't in the same
spirit, a license which allowed attribution to "Wikipedia" without the
explicit consent of the author wouldn't be in the same spirit.

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Brian J Mingus
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to make
it easier.

But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more practical
about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> > I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just
> the
> > Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict
> terms
> > of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't
> see
> > it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
> > license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we
> can
> > get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
> > face and other content mediums do not.
>
> We can't relicense GFDL works under a license which isn't in the same
> spirit, a license which allowed attribution to "Wikipedia" without the
> explicit consent of the author wouldn't be in the same spirit.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing interim update

geni
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
> license?

It kinda died out. Ended up being merged into Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 .

>We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can
> get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
> face and other content mediums do not.

Author numbers are not that far above movies (and far below in most
cases) and the change rate is high but the problems are no different
they are for any news organisation.

In any case creating yet another license incompatibility issue is not
something that we should be advocating.

--
geni

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
>> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
>> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
>> it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
>> license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can
>> get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
>> face and other content mediums do not.
>
> We can't relicense GFDL works under a license which isn't in the same
> spirit, a license which allowed attribution to "Wikipedia" without the
> explicit consent of the author wouldn't be in the same spirit.

My reading of the spirit clause:

"The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the
GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns."

is that it is really only binding on the FSF, and it is fuzzy enough
to allow them lots of wiggle room.  (Which parts of the license
constitute its spirit, and which are merely details?)  As the
maintainers of the license they would seem to have wide latitude to
decide.  I don't know if the FSF would allow attribution by
"Wikipedia", and there are certainly some good arguments against it,
but I wouldn't assume that it couldn't happen.  By allowing the
CC-BY-SA migration in the first place they have already made a quite
substantial change in how licensing is handled, and I wouldn't assume
they would rule out other large changes.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
> I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
> should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to make
> it easier.

You can't read about exactly the the spirit of something is. The whole
point of "spirit" is that is is separate to what to put into words.
When you put it into words, something is lost. I expect there are
plenty of discussions on the subject around if you look for them,
though - you may want to start with
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more practical
> about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?

That depends on what the differences are. If there is anything
particularly significant (and attributing "Wikipedia" rather than the
actual author is significant), then you can't do it. The differences
between GFDL and CC-BY-SA are basically just about the details of how
you do things, rather than the end result, so there isn't a problem.
(And even that is controversial.)

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

Re: Licensing interim update

geni
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?

Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"

Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.

So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
problem).

> I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
> should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to make
> it easier.

Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
"the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?

> But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more practical
> about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?

Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the situation.

--
geni

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Sam Johnston-4
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>
> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"

Interesting you should choose to quote this while conveniently failing
to include the *primary* purpose:

"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."

We are moving to the CC-BY-SA license to improve compatibility and
foster reuse, yes? The 'spirit' clause gives us a good deal of freedom
"to address new problems or concerns" and one of the primary residual
problems that many (most?) of us have relates to the secondary
purpose. Surely where the secondary purpose is at odds with the
primary purpose it is the primary purpose that should prevail?

Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
quotes, most physical mediums, compilations, etc.) and partial
attributions are in many ways worse than no attributions at all,
surely attributing Wikipedia is the best way to achieve our primary
goals?

If your concern is that we will run out of content because we are not
attributing individuals then I wouldn't worry about that - there are
more than enough selfless people working tirelessly for no other
reason than to make the world a better place.

Kudos to Erik for the excellent summary,

Sam

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by geni
> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
> problem).

Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only.

A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be
attributed to them in a flexible manner.

I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on every
bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would consider
flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is not
explicitly listed, fair attribution to them.

I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against a
hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a
Uniform Resource Locator anyway?  "It specifies where an identified resource
is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia)

We can do that without including all the http:// bits.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>
> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
>
> Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.
>
> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
> problem).
>
> > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
> > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to
> make
> > it easier.
>
> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?
>
> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more
> practical
> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?
>
> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the
> situation.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing interim update

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Sam Johnston-4
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph

Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
attributions are necessary.

> quotes, most physical mediums, compilations, etc.) and partial
> attributions are in many ways worse than no attributions at all,

Could you specify at least some of these many ways?

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
> attributions are necessary.

Um... yes we have... unless "full attribution" means something
different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
interpret CC-BY-SA as requiring (it's rather flexible on exactly how
you give that list, which is big improvement over GFDL, but it still
requires the list).

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:

> Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the redirect page would need to be fixed..)


With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
when it existed in any language version:

Wikipedia


For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned
images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are
lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and
you can find the author.

I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says
something reasonable for a change?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
> > problem).
>
> Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only.
>
> A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be
> attributed to them in a flexible manner.
>
> I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on every
> bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would consider
> flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is not
> explicitly listed, fair attribution to them.
>
> I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against a
> hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a
> Uniform Resource Locator anyway?  "It specifies where an identified
> resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia)
>
> We can do that without including all the http:// bits.
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>> > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>>
>> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
>> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
>>
>> Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
>> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
>> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.
>>
>> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
>> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
>> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
>> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
>> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
>> problem).
>>
>> > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
>> > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
>> > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
>> > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to
>> make
>> > it easier.
>>
>> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
>> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?
>>
>> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more
>> practical
>> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?
>>
>> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the
>> situation.
>>
>> --
>> geni
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing interim update

Brian J Mingus
Wikipedia.org/URL was just a reference to my last e-mail, not to confuse
you. Wikipedia.org/Article is more clear.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
> reasonable with current tech:
>
>> Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the redirect page would need to be fixed..)
>
>
> With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no
> matter when it existed in any language version:
>
> Wikipedia
>
>
> For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned
> images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are
> lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and
> you can find the author.
>
> I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says
> something reasonable for a change?
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
>> > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
>> > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
>> > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
>> > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
>> > problem).
>>
>> Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only.
>>
>> A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be
>> attributed to them in a flexible manner.
>>
>> I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on
>> every bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would
>> consider flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is
>> not explicitly listed, fair attribution to them.
>>
>> I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against
>> a hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a
>> Uniform Resource Locator anyway?  "It specifies where an identified
>> resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia)
>>
>> We can do that without including all the http:// bits.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>>> > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>>>
>>> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
>>> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
>>>
>>> Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
>>> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
>>> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.
>>>
>>> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
>>> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
>>> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
>>> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
>>> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
>>> problem).
>>>
>>> > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
>>> > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
>>> > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
>>> > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to
>>> make
>>> > it easier.
>>>
>>> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
>>> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?
>>>
>>> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more
>>> practical
>>> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?
>>>
>>> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> geni
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
2009/2/3 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
> when it existed in any language version:

Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.

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

Re: Licensing interim update

Sam Johnston-4
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
> attributions are necessary.

Yes they have.

>> quotes, most physical mediums, compilations, etc.) and partial
>> attributions are in many ways worse than no attributions at all,
>
> Could you specify at least some of these many ways?

Ok, so off the top of my head:

 - It is impossible to reliably determine the top contributors in a
mechanical fashion, because:
 - There are no reliable metrics for identifying 'top contributors'
(e.g. edit count vs wikiblame vs creator vs something else?) but:
 - Manual determination of top contributors creates opportunities for
internal conflict where there would otherwise be none yet:
 - Partial attribution creates opportunities for external conflict
(think DMCA, lawsuits, etc.) where those excluded take exception,
which leads us to:
 - Optional attribution which incents those who might otherwise not
care to request attribution and besides:
 - Content changes over time so the article consulted at a random
point during the life of the derivative work will differ from that
when it was incorporated; thus it's meaningless anyway unless:
 - Re-users are forced to copy the entire (already massive and
constantly growing) edit history and identify the specific version
that was used and even then:
 - Extracting signal from the noise is virtually impossible, even for
a small number of authors which takes us back to the start.

Wikis, or 'Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Sites' (as the FSF calls
them) are a relatively new concept. Copyright, attribution, etc. works
well for individuals and extends to relatively small groups (e.g.
bands, tv/film crews, journals, etc.) but many of us believe that it
breaks badly at this scale.

In any case it is clear that Erik/WMF have a good handle on the issue
and Brian's nailed it:

"With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
when it existed in any language version:"

"Wikipedia"

Sam

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234