Reuse policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Reuse policy

Bugzilla from hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
Hello everybody,
I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
the Commons added following text under the edit window:

"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or
URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
credit is sufficient in any medium."

I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of
this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.

It is true, a similar statement is present at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
can see (it was shortly discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments ).
Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.

Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business.
Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in
troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia
should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
could be enough.

Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which
was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be
lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
completely.

Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."

And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
third party have chosen.

What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is
not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to
continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
there.

I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.

I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the
attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
appropriate credits.

Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face
of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much
anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.

Best regards,
Jiri Hofman

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

Re: Reuse policy

Robert Rohde
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
explicitly say that this is only one form of possible attribution and
highlight more permanent forms of attribution, such as creating author
lists.  I would expect that book publishers and other concerned with
permanence would choose a more permanent format.

In the attribution survey of 1000+ editors in March, attribution by
link was the most popular option (though certainly not universally
accepted).  Given that, I would expect that most text contributors
will happily continue editing, and it won't lead to "the end of
Wikimedia projects" as you suggest, even though some individuals may
choose to stop contributing.

-Robert Rohde

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jiri Hofman<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
> I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
> the Commons added following text under the edit window:
>
> "Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or
> URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
> credit is sufficient in any medium."
>
> I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of
> this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
>
> It is true, a similar statement is present at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
> discussed at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
> can see (it was shortly discussed at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments ).
> Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
> advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
> an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
> end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
>
> Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business.
> Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in
> troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
> enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
> published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
> publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
> Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia
> should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
> could be enough.
>
> Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which
> was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be
> lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
> completely.
>
> Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
> financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
> soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
> sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
> blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
> business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
>
> And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
> his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
> projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
> attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
> works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
> explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
> third party have chosen.
>
> What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is
> not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
> projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
> not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to
> continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
> there.
>
> I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
> descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
> media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
> the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
> problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
>
> I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the
> attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
> challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
> appropriate credits.
>
> Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face
> of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much
> anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
> mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
> can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
>
> Best regards,
> Jiri Hofman
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reuse policy

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware that
we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.

The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. If
it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host a
stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to
the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in
which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns.
You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of view -
that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF is
not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the
potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the
knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a
serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to the
medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jiri Hofman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
> I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
> the Commons added following text under the edit window:
>
> "Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink
> or
> URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
> credit is sufficient in any medium."
>
> I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan
> of
> this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
>
> It is true, a similar statement is present at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
> discussed at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
> can see (it was shortly discussed at
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments).
> Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
> advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
> an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
> end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
>
> Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the
> business.
> Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be
> in
> troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
> enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
> published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
> publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
> Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then
> Wikimedia
> should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
> could be enough.
>
> Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article
> which
> was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will
> be
> lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
> completely.
>
> Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
> financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
> soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
> sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
> blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
> business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
>
> And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
> his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
> projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
> attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
> works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
> explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
> third party have chosen.
>
> What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It
> is
> not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
> projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
> not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing
> to
> continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
> there.
>
> I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
> descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
> media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
> the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
> problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
>
> I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if
> the
> attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
> challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
> appropriate credits.
>
> Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a
> face
> of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so
> much
> anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
> mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
> can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
>
> Best regards,
> Jiri Hofman
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reuse policy

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
> The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
> as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will

Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?

> explicitly say that this is only one form of possible attribution and
> highlight more permanent forms of attribution, such as creating author
> lists.  I would expect that book publishers and other concerned with
> permanence would choose a more permanent format.

Why do you expect them to do that, when it is not required of them, and it is
easier for them to not do it?

> In the attribution survey of 1000+ editors in March, attribution by
> link was the most popular option (though certainly not universally
> accepted).  Given that, I would expect that most text contributors

The survey was fundamentally flawed, having questions that were biased
strongly in favor of this outcome. As such, its results are worthless, and
you really shouldn't present it as valid.

> will happily continue editing, and it won't lead to "the end of
> Wikimedia projects" as you suggest, even though some individuals may
> choose to stop contributing.

Translation: "Given that most people are willing to tolerate our ludicrous
decisions, we should continue to be make more ludicrous decisions."

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

Re: Reuse policy

geni
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
2009/6/15 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
> and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.

The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not
really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed
with means that they can hardly be considered stable.


--
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: Reuse policy

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
>> The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
>> as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will

> Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?

For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html

Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised
terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days,
beginning today.
--
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: Reuse policy

Chad
In reply to this post by geni
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:05 PM, geni<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/6/15 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>> The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
>> and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
>
> The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not
> really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed
> with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Very true! Plain and simple: URLs on the internet are horribly
unstable and make for terribly inaccurate attribution. Cool URLs
may not change[1], but I think the majority of the internet missed
the memo and are content using non-cool URLs :)

-Chad

[1] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

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

Re: Reuse policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There is only one way to cite a Wikipedia article with a reasonable chance
of success and that is by referring to the permalink.
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/6/15 Chad <[hidden email]>

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:05 PM, geni<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2009/6/15 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> >> The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link
> to
> >> and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
> >
> > The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not
> > really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed
> > with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> Very true! Plain and simple: URLs on the internet are horribly
> unstable and make for terribly inaccurate attribution. Cool URLs
> may not change[1], but I think the majority of the internet missed
> the memo and are content using non-cool URLs :)
>
> -Chad
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reuse policy

Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Gerard
Meijssen<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is only one way to cite a Wikipedia article with a reasonable chance
> of success and that is by referring to the permalink.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM

Which of course renders the historical wikicode through the current
parser with current templates, current stylesheets, current image
versions, etc., etc.  ;-)

-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: Reuse policy

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by geni
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=history

"We're sorry, access to *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=history* has been
blocked by the site owner via robots.txt. "
Smart..

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/6/15 Brian <[hidden email]>:
> > The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
> > and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
>
> The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not
> really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed
> with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
>
>
> --
> 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: Reuse policy

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 21:09:36 Erik Moeller написа:

> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> > Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
> >> The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
> >> as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
> >
> > Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual
> > licences?
>
> For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
>
> Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised

The discussion was closed?

> terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days,
> beginning today.

I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from
the page before I contribute.

And for Christ's sake, why such arrogance in wording this? "you hereby agree
that such credit is sufficient in any medium" - no I most certainly do not!
You could have at very least have decency to say "you agree to be credited in
this way" - still not ideal but at least you don't require of people to agree
that black is whit.

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

Re: Reuse policy

Bugzilla from hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the list
of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees
the work will stay free even when everything else collapses.

No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how rights
of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are
important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think
otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA.

By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just
providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the
minimal rights of authors.

The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of the
major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license as
GFDL was chosen.

BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because they
are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with it
which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make
things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated.

Jiri


On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote:

> Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware that
> we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
>
> The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
> and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. If
> it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host a
> stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to
> the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in
> which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns.
> You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of view -
> that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF is
> not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the
> potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the
> knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a
> serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to the
> medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.

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

Re: Reuse policy

Brian J Mingus
Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the
CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html

That's all I have..

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jiri Hofman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the
> list
> of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees
> the work will stay free even when everything else collapses.
>
> No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how
> rights
> of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are
> important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think
> otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA.
>
> By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just
> providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the
> minimal rights of authors.
>
> The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of
> the
> major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license
> as
> GFDL was chosen.
>
> BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because
> they
> are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with
> it
> which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make
> things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated.
>
> Jiri
>
>
> On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote:
> > Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware
> that
> > we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
> >
> > The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
> > and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
> If
> > it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host
> a
> > stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to
> > the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in
> > which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns.
> > You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of
> view -
> > that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF
> is
> > not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the
> > potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the
> > knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a
> > serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to
> the
> > medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reuse policy

Nikola Smolenski
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 22:02:09 Brian написа:
> Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the
> CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html

Actually, I find that overview to be rather poor.

1) It says that "The "attribution by link" option was explicitly made
available to authors in CC-BY-SA 2.0", but it was only made available in
addition to the attributing the author by name, not instead of it. "Authors
also have the option to not supply an author name" but they don't actually
have to excercise that option and most people haven't done so.

2) & 3) says that "As long as authors consent to terms of use requiring
attribution by hyperlink, such attribution is consistent with moral rights.
Such consent has already been given for existing edits", however no such
consent has ever been given. To the contrary, a number of printed copies of
Wikipedia content that have already been made go to great lengths in order to
print lists of authors who wrote the texts in them.

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

Re: Reuse policy

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from
> the page before I contribute.

Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly
understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of
release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted
on sight.
--
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: Reuse policy

Nikola Smolenski
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 22:46:44 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> > I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text
> > from the page before I contribute.
>
> Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly
> understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of
> release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted
> on sight.

I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of
applicable licences.

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

Re: Reuse policy

Brian J Mingus
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of
> applicable licences.


You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the
CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC
and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reuse policy

geni
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/6/15 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
>> I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from
>> the page before I contribute.
>
> Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly
> understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of
> release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted
> on sight.

No such policy exists. Are you proposing one?

--
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: Reuse policy

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:09:20 Brian написа:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those
> > of applicable licences.
>
> You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the
> CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC
> and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.

No, I made it quite clear that I have a correct interpretation of CC-BY-SA,
and that your claims of having a legal counsel are bogus.

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

Re: Reuse policy

Mark (Markie)
"*Mike Godwin <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin>*,
General Counsel and Legal Coordinator since July 2007." (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff) Hmm that would claim otherwise.

Mark

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:09:20 Brian написа:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those
> > > of applicable licences.
> >
> > You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the
> > CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC
> > and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
>
> No, I made it quite clear that I have a correct interpretation of CC-BY-SA,
> and that your claims of having a legal counsel are bogus.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
12