RfC: License update proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
198 messages Options
12345 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Mike Godwin-3

Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike  
>>> Licenses.
>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf

That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the  
total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY-
SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x.

> In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all
> previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license
> considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Yes.

> Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and
> Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used.  I
> would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if
> BY-SA is adopted as the main content license.

Of course.

See also rms's excellent discussion of the issue at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter/ 
  .

It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker  
than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.


--Mike





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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski
2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]>:
> Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have to say
> that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient. As a
> Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will feel the same.

That's probably true, Nikola. The proposed attribution language is
intended to balance the various positions (ranging from 'an URL should
always be fine' to 'names should always be given'), the established
practices, and the language of the GFDL (principal author
requirement). Our hope is that a strong majority will recognize the
value of such a compromise, and the improvement over current state:
huge complexity for re-users, legal barriers between groups that
should be able to cooperate, inconsistent and confusing
interpretations of the rules.

And I don't think we can or should take the easy way out and not make
a decision as to what the terms of re-use should be. But any decision
is likely to offend a sub-group of people who feel it's going too far,
or not far enough. Nor do we have complete freedom to pick any
solution we want: we need to make an effort to be consistent with past
practices. So there will be a certain degree of unhappiness, as is
always the case when a time period of inconsistency and arbitrary
standards is followed by a time period of equal and shared standards.
(The same happened, as you will recall, after the Board implemented a
licensing policy prohibiting NC licenses, etc.)

I realize that some community guidelines have asked or encouraged
print re-users to include a complete list of usernames alongside
articles. (This, by the way, does not satisfy the GFDL's history
inclusion requirement.) Under the proposed language, that would
continue to be necessary for articles which have no more than five
authors. The proposed language recognizes the value of direct name
attribution in those instances: for articles that are essentially the
work of just one or two people; for static multimedia works; etc. It
is consistent with the GFDL's standards of visible byline attribution
through naming the principal authors of a document.

There are various problems with making a distinction between print and
online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that
there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable
for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author
metadata? Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata
text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product? Is
a screen in a flight information system? So in order to deal with
those cases, you start making more complex rules which, again,
discourage meaningful re-use. This in spite of the fact that the
usernames we are talking about, in a large number of cases, will only
be unambiguous and meaningful if resolved to username URIs; the extent
of their contributions can only be meaningfully ascertained when
reviewing a page history.

That's why I think history or credit URIs are a reasonable attribution
mechanism for works that are the result of the work of many people. I
also feel that they represent a compromise between your position and
that of others who have contributed.
--
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: RfC: License update proposal

geni
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/1/20 geni <[hidden email]>:
>>  4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
>> is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
>> attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is  through
>> 4(c)(i).
>
> You are making an unsupported assertion. CC-BY-SA is precisely
> structured (as are all BY licenses) to support attribution URIs; that
> is why 4(c)(iii) exists.

So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your
approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c)

"You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"

That is an and command not an or. You have to meet everything from
4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iv)

Still lets pretend you can treat 4(c)(iii) as the sole credit clause

"to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not
refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;
and"

First problem is that it clearly isn't a credit clause (since the
license repeated views copyright notices and credit as two separate
things) now it is possible we could consider "licensing information"
to include credit but I find that definition highly questionable. Then
there is the "to the extent reasonably practicable" bit. By claiming
4(c)(iii) is a credit clause you are arguing that credit only need be
given  "to the extent reasonably practicable" rather than as an
absolute credit must be given (in a form reasonable to the medium or
means). Yet again this is completely unacceptable.


> CC metadata standards allow for attribution
> URIs [1],

It allows it but not in the way you are suggesting.
cc:attributionName and cc:attributionURL are separate variables. Yes
someone can put a URL into cc:attributionName but most wikipedians
have pseudonyms or names that don't qualify as URLs

>and when you license a work through the CC website, you can
> specify an attribution URI as an alternative to a name.

And you would be allowed to do exactly the same on wikipedia if the
account creator didn't blacklist all URLs. That people can chose an
URL as a pseudonym doesn't help your case at all.


--
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: RfC: License update proposal

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
> There are various problems with making a distinction between print and
> online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that
> there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable
> for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author
> metadata? Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata
> text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product? Is
> a screen in a flight information system? So in order to deal with
> those cases, you start making more complex rules which, again,
> discourage meaningful re-use. This in spite of the fact that the
> usernames we are talking about, in a large number of cases, will only
> be unambiguous and meaningful if resolved to username URIs; the extent
> of their contributions can only be meaningfully ascertained when
> reviewing a page history.

A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
"online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems assumes all electronic
data is only available on the internet. I don't see a problem with
listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
perfectly reasonable to me. If instead of names there's just a URL on
the t-shirt, does that mean I can't where it in China since people
seeing it won't have any way (without significant technical know-how)
to view the list of authors?

People choosing to submit work under a pseudonym have clearly
indicated that they are happen to be attributed under that pseudonym,
I don't see any need to provide context. (It's good to do so where
practical, of course.)

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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> >>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
> >>> Licenses.
> >>
> >> [citation needed]
> >
> > There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
>
> That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the
> total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY-
> SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x.
>

Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated rather than
counting each one.  The total number is completely irrelevant though, Mike,
other than the fact that it's more than 1.  You should spell things out
before you have people work on them.

There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.  (I believe there are
over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)

> In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all
> > previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license
> > considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> Yes.
>

As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?  You know, the one that says "You must not
distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the
Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
reputation"?

That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that anyone can
mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.

> Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and
> > Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used.  I
> > would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if
> > BY-SA is adopted as the main content license.
>
> Of course.


It'd be nice if this were spelled out before removing "this page is still a
draft" from the proposal, and in particular, before voting begins.

"All text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License."  "By submitting an edit, you agree to release your contribution
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License..."
"If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you
must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License." "You may import content from other sources that is available under
the CC-BY-SA license only" What version(s), and what jurisdiction(s)?

It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
> than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
>

What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be
judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/21 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?  You know, the one that says "You must not
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the
> Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> reputation"?

That quote is pulled out of context in a fashion that completely
obscures its meaning and intent. When this issue was discussed on
commons-l, Catharina Maracke, the head of CCi, provided the following
explanation:

> Generally speaking, moral rights have to be addressed in the
> unported license to assure that this license would be enforceable
> by law in every jurisdiction, whether moral rights are exist or
> not. The criticism, that the wording of the moral rights section in
> the unported license could be read as if the licensee has the
> obligation "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other
> derogatory action in relation to the work which would be
> prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" in every
> jurisdiction, even if moral rights are do not exist, is not legally
> correct.
>
> The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law"
> refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not.
> This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist,
> this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does
> not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights
> (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the
> licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any
> other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be
> prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether
> we like it or not.
>
> In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the first part
> of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law"
> explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to
> not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action
> in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original
> authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a
> jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of
> the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by
> applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation
> permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if
> moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective
> law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as
> otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort,
> mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to
> the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor
> or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable
> copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if
> moral rights are do not exist.
>
> However, I also see the point, that besides being legally correct,
> CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC
> licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed,
> even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to
> find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple
> language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in
> the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a
> simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it
> does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.

As Catharine wrote then, this is an issue of clarity. I hope that it
can be addressed in future revisions, but I don't regard it as a
stumbling block for adopting the Unported license. Furthermore, per
4.b.iii., CC-BY-SA is mutually interchangeable with the various
jurisdiction-specific licenses.
--
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: RfC: License update proposal

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
> > Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata
> > text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product?
>


> I don't see a problem with
> listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
> perfectly reasonable to me.


Can someone remind me why this matters in the first place?  Is there some
real world practical use that I'm missing?

> Attribution by reference to a URL only seems reasonable for online
> reuse to me.

Seems like a really simple and easy to apply rule to me.  If you're
distributing online, you can use a URL.  If you're not, you can't.  That's
what at least some people thought they were agreeing to when they submitted
their content, and it's absolutely wrong to not recognize their right to
have that followed.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
> classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems assumes all electronic
> data is only available on the internet. I don't see a problem with
> listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
> perfectly reasonable to me. If instead of names there's just a URL on
> the t-shirt, does that mean I can't where it in China since people
> seeing it won't have any way (without significant technical know-how)
> to view the list of authors?

Nor would you be able to access the list of authors on a mirror that
carries it by reference. Whether you draw the distinction between
print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
copy; so does an email attachment.) A licensing regime that relies on
such arbitrary transformations of attribution is fundamentally
unworkable for re-users.
--
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: RfC: License update proposal

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/1/21 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> > As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?  You know, the one that says "You must not
> > distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to
> the
> > Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> > reputation"?
>
> That quote is pulled out of context in a fashion that completely
> obscures its meaning and intent.


Is that a yes?  CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Whether you draw the distinction between
> print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
> somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
> very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
> copy; so does an email attachment.)


How is it arbitrary?  A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
copy.  There's nothing at all arbitrary about that.

If you're trying to imply that someone creating such a copy is thereby
breaking the law, then you're being quite disingenuous.  Whether it's fair
dealing or fair use or legal precedent or whatever, it's clear that a court
of law in any reasonable jurisdiction is going to excuse such incidental
copying.

Besides, in most any jurisdiction other than US (as well as under the Berne
Convention), the right to attribution is inalienable and not covered by
copyright law or licenses anyway.


> A licensing regime that relies on
> such arbitrary transformations of attribution is fundamentally
> unworkable for re-users.


It's not at all arbitrary.  The difference between attribution being a click
away and attribution being provided over a completely different medium which
may or may not be available is quite clear.  It's also unclear how it's
unworkable.  Static Wikipedia has provided author lists for quite a while,
and that's without much thought at all being put into culling down the
authors.  It's only if you invent some convoluted scenarios involving
T-shirts or postcards that it becomes unworkable.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
>> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
>> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
>> classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems assumes all electronic
>> data is only available on the internet. I don't see a problem with
>> listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
>> perfectly reasonable to me. If instead of names there's just a URL on
>> the t-shirt, does that mean I can't where it in China since people
>> seeing it won't have any way (without significant technical know-how)
>> to view the list of authors?
>
> Nor would you be able to access the list of authors on a mirror that
> carries it by reference.

Ideally, a mirror would carry a local copy of the history page and
link to that. Even if they don't, the problem is caused by the Chinese
government being inconsistent with their polices (blocking the
original while not blocking the mirror), so I think it's fair to make
allowances.

> Whether you draw the distinction between
> print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
> somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
> very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
> copy; so does an email attachment.) A licensing regime that relies on
> such arbitrary transformations of attribution is fundamentally
> unworkable for re-users.

I don't think there's an ambiguity there - when you view anything
online it becomes a local copy, but I think it's perfectly clear in
the vast majority of cases whether it's an online or offline source
(there may be the odd corner case, there often is, there is rarely any
option beyond common sense for dealing with 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: RfC: License update proposal

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4

Anthony writes:

> Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated  
> rather than
> counting each one.

My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.  
I'm astonished.

> There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.

They are sufficiently interchangeable or interoperable, however, that  
they can be treated as one license for our purposes.

>  (I believe there are
> over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)

I'm sure if *you* counted them there would be "over 100" at least.

> As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?  You know, the one that says "You must  
> not
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in  
> relation to the
> Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> reputation"?
>
> That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that  
> anyone can
> mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.

As Erik has explained, this is part of the moral-rights language  
necessary to the license such that it can be applied in moral-rights-
honoring jurisdictions.

Perhaps you could write us a little essay on how you well you think  
GFDL addresses the moral-rights question.  I look forward to your  
sharing your expertise, Counselor.

>> It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker  
>> than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
>>
> What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be
> judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?

That argument requires that you analyze GFDL on every dimension that  
you analyze CC-BY-SA 3.0 on.  I look forward to your analysis,  
Counselor.


--Mike





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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Mike Peel
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
Scenario 1: An article from Wikipedia is used elsewhere (be it on or  
offline), with a link to the history of the page. The article is  
subsequently deleted from Wikipedia (e.g. accidentally and  
irretrievably).

Scenario 2: Wikipedia ceases to exist in its current form. Its  
content is hosted elsewhere, but no link exists from the former  
location of the history page to the new location.

In either of those scenarios (and there's lots of other  
possibilities), the attribution ceases to be meaningful or useful.

In my opinion, attribution of all authors is preferable, and  
technically achievable.* Where that is not possible, e.g. due to  
space restrictions, then naming the key N authors is acceptable (and  
it should also be technically achievable to provide that abbreviated  
list). Including "Wikipedia" in the attribution is very reasonable,  
but not as the sole word. Providing a single URL only, which may stop  
working in the future, is not acceptable (although it would be  
acceptable as an accompaniment).

Mike

* If you don't want this cluttering up the footer, then simply have  
an "Authors" tab along the lines of the existing history tab. Or some  
sort of "Reuse this page" link with reuse instructions/guidelines on  
it, along the lines of "Cite this page"

On 21 Jan 2009, at 07:51, George Herbert wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
>>> CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model
>>> is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use
>>> attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4
>>> (c)(i)
>>> and 4(c)(iii).
>>
>>  4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
>> is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
>> attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is  
>> through
>> 4(c)(i).
>
>
> How is the foundation not distributing the (independently authored)  
> work?
>
> Attribution methods are first controlled by 4(c) - specifically "  
> reasonable
> to the medium or means You are utilizing".
>
> If Mike believes that a URL to the page history for pages with 6 or  
> more
> authors is acceptable under the terms of the license, and the Creative
> Commons' staff attorney so agrees, then I believe that they have just
> defined "reasonable to the medium or means we are utilizing" in  
> minimum
> legal terms, at least.  If you feel that it's morally repugnant  
> somehow then
> we can talk, of course, but I believe that this is both reasonable  
> and on
> first glance close to the optimum balance of practical (in the  
> sense of, can
> be consistently and legally followed) and ethical (in the sense of,  
> keeping
> people's credits as closely associated as we can).
>
>
> Again lets go through that section you have two things you can  
> attribute to:
>>
>> "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if  
>> supplied"
>>
>> However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half:
>>
>> "if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or
>> parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for
>> attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice,
>> terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party
>> or parties;"
>>
>> So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part
>> of the clause but trying to define say
>> "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&action=history"  
>> as an
>> Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the
>> paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party.
>>
>> Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it
>> still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from
>> time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third
>> parties.
>
>
> If we get common agreement with the CC's attorney and the populace  
> as a
> whole that CC-BY-SA-3.0 means (for wikis with 6+ contributors) what  
> we say
> it does, then it doesn't prevent any import or have any issue with  
> deleting
> things.
>
> If we delete a contribution, from the page text and page history,  
> then that
> text is not part of the page that's being served up and to which  
> the license
> applies.  Legally, CC-BY-SA-3.0 could be fought over by me going in  
> and
> taking all your contributions to a page and paraphrasing them, then  
> taking
> you out of the "authors list" as you didn't write any text still  
> appearing
> on the page.  We take a more liberal view- if you contributed,  
> you're in the
> history.  There are exceptions - we do delete revisions in  
> extremis.  But in
> general, not one word you wrote can still be in a current article  
> and you
> still show up and get credit now.  In some cases your ideas may  
> still be
> present, in some cases they have all been removed, but you still  
> get credit
> except for rare and narrow circumstances.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> 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: RfC: License update proposal

Platonides
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:

> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton:
>> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
>> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
>> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
>> classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems assumes all electronic
>> data is only available on the internet. I don't see a problem with
>> listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
>> perfectly reasonable to me. If instead of names there's just a URL on
>> the t-shirt, does that mean I can't where it in China since people
>> seeing it won't have any way (without significant technical know-how)
>> to view the list of authors?
>
> Nor would you be able to access the list of authors on a mirror that
> carries it by reference. Whether you draw the distinction between
> print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
> somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
> very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
> copy; so does an email attachment.) A licensing regime that relies on
> such arbitrary transformations of attribution is fundamentally
> unworkable for re-users.

Think on it like in GPL terms.
The site presents you both the bianry and the source. You decide only to
download the binary. Well, that's your option. The point is, you CAN
download the sources.
So, if you save the page into your harddisk, and only the page, choosing
not to save the authors, you're not breaking the license. Whereas if you
handed anyone else book pritned from wikipedia, you must be able to
answer the question "Who wrote this?"
And no, "some Wikipedians" is not a valid answer, just like "a bunch of
geeks" is neither an acceptable answer to "Who wrote the Linux kernel?"

If you're providing DVDs with the articles you'll have a hard time to
convince me not to add the author list.
However, if you're copying an article into a friend's usb key I may
accept leaving the history info aside, depending on things like his
means to get online, his technical abilities to find it or your
knowledge that he doesn't want it.

Instead of placing the proposed guidelines into the 'Attribution'
section, I think we may be able to better if instead it just said 'You
must provide proper attribution to the authors' and link to a FAQ
listing recommended ways to do that on a case-per-case basis.
Making a definition suitable for everything, someone will always dispute
it based on some obscure use case, whereas it's much easier to agree on
how could attribution be provided for a postcard.


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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Erik Moeller-4
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entire
history would have to be included with every copy of the article.
Needless to say, in a print product, this would occupy a very
significant amount of space. Needless to say, equally, it's a
significant obligation for a re-user. And, of course, Wikipedia keeps
growing and so do its attribution records.

The notion that it's actually useful to anyone in that list is dubious
at best. A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
their context in Wikipedia. I think requiring this for, e.g., a
wiki-reader on countries makes it significantly less likely for people
to create such products, and I think that the benefit of free
knowledge weighs greater than the benefit of credit to largely
pseudonymous individuals who have never, at any point, been promised
or given to understand that their name would be given a significant
degree of visibility through the lifetime of the article they
contribute to.

The idea that we can meaningfully define the number of cases where
this requirement is onerous and the number where it isn't through
simple language is not at all obvious to me. Whether something is
onerous is in part a function of someone's willingness and ability to
invest effort, not whether they are creating something that's intended
for online and offline use. Ironically, heavy attribution requirements
advantage publishing houses with armies of lawyers over individuals.
People who don't care about rules will ignore any requirement we set
(and realistically we have no energy or ability to enforce those
requirements in most cases); unreasonable requirements primarily
affect people who are trying to do the right thing, like any
unnecessary emergence of bureaucracy.

But, I do not want to rehash every  single argument a hundred times.
As I said in a different thread, I think it may be useful to include
at least a preference poll in the licensing vote to better understand
where different people are on this issue. Attribution-by-URL under
certain circumstances is consistent with many people's expectations
and preference, but clearly not with everyone's. If there's a
predominant conception of an acceptable attribution regime, that would
make developing a consistent model easier.

Erik

(aeropagitica), - 45, -Midorihana-, ..p, 03md, 6ty7u89i, 14 tom 1406,
334a, 041744, ^demon, Aaker, Abeg92, Abilityfun, Academic Challenger,
Acadienne, Acemaroon, Acroterion, ACV777, Addshore, Adrian Robson,
AdrianCo, Adrille, Aesopos, Aeusoes1, Aflin, AgarwalSumeet, Agateller,
Agillet, Ahoerstemeier, AirdishStraus, Airhead5, Aitias, Akanemoto,
AkifSarwar, Alcatar, AlefZet, Alensha, Alethiophile, AlexisMichaud,
AlexiusHoratius, AlexLibman, Alientraveller, AlleborgoBot, Alll,
AlnoktaBOT, Alopex, Alphachimp, Alphachimpbot, Alphador,
Amateaurhistorian411, Ambafrance, AndersBot, AndonicO, Andrew Levine,
Andrewhalim, AndrewHowse, Andrewpmk, Andy Marchbanks, Andy wakey,
Andygharvey, Angela, Angelo De La Paz, Anger22, Angusmclellan, Ann
O'nyme, Annalaurab, Antandrus, Antennaman, AnthroGael, AntiSpamBot,
AntiVandalBot, Antonrojo, Antwon Galante, Aol kid, Appleseed,
Aquarelle, Aranherunar, ARC Gritt, AreJay, Arenrce, ArmenG,
Arnehalbakken, Arnoutf, Aronlevin, Arpingstone, Arsenal666, Arthur
Rubin, Arwack, ASDFGH, Asidemes, Asm82, Asterion, Atlant, Aude, Avala,
Avenue, Awien, AxG, AySz88, Azertymenneke, Backburner001, Bahaab,
BalkanFever, Bamsucks123, Bangvang, Bardhylius, Baristarim, Baronnet,
Barryob, Basawala, Baseballnut290, Bathrobe, Bazonka, Bcnviajero,
BdB-18, BDpill359, BECASC, Beerus, Behemoth, Bellahdoll, Benhealy,
BenoniBot, Bertilvidet, Betacommand, BetacommandBot, Beyond silence,
BigBrotherIsWatchingYou, Bigordo11, Bigtimepeace, Billinghurst,
Billposer, Birnuson, Blablablob, Black Kite, Blahblahx12, Blain123,
Blastwizard, Bluecheese333, BlueMars, Bob not otis, Bob9000,
Bob1234567890123456789, Bobblewik, Bobo192, Bobthellama9,
BodhisattvaBot, Bogdan, Bolonka, Bona Fides, Bonadea, Bongwarrior,
Boomshanka, Boonaone, Booner47, Bootstoots, BorgQueen, Bot-Schafter,
BOT-Superzerocool, Bota47, BotMultichill, Bourkeazoid, BradBeattie,
Brahmaputra, Brandon.macuser, Brazo622, Bre29, BrendelSignature,
Brianga, Brianruyle814, Bridesmill, BritishWatcher, Britsrule06,
Buchanan-Hermit, Buckunit50, Bunny-chan, Buybooks Marius, Byrialbot,
C5mjohn, Cactus.man, Caesarjbsquitti, Calliopejen1, Callum+Jacob's
Fetish, CALR, Caltas, Camulod, Can't sleep, clown will eat me,
CanadianCaesar, Canadianism, CanadianLinuxUser, Caniago, Captain
Disdain, CaptainVindaloo, Carl Logan, Carl.bunderson, Carlon,
Casaubon, CaseyPenk, Casper2k3, Casperdc, Cassini83, Catgut,
Cbmoney132, Ccady, Ccraccnam, Certh, ChaChaFut, CharlotteWebb, Chase
me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Check two you, Chicken7890,
Chickenfrancese, Childzy, Chivista, ChKa, Chlewbot, Chobot, Chochopk,
Chrisberkin, Chrisboy2006, ChrisCork, ChrisDHDR, ChrisnHouston,
Chrisritch, ChrisSk8, Christopher Lims, Chriswiki, Chunky Rice,
Chwech, Ciacchi, CieloEstrellado, CIreland, CJ King, CJLL Wright,
Ckatz, Ckoicedelire, Cliché Online, Clientele, Cliffhangr, Cloakdeath,
Closedmouth, Clown57, Clt13, ClueBot, Cmc0, CmdrObot, Coati123,
Cobaltbluetony, Cokes360, ColonySwiss, Colston20, ComeGetSome,
Cometstyles, CommonsDelinker, Connormom, Connors11s, Conor's Whipped,
Conorobradaigh, Consciousnessbliss, Coredesat, Crazycomputers,
Cremepuff222, CrusherEAGLE, Cst1985, Cubanarmy, Cuenca, Curps,
Cutsman, Cvene64, Cydebot, D-Day, Daa89563, Daborhe, Daduzi,
Dagron12345, Daicaregos, Dalv89, Damnit97, Danh, Dani rox 33, Daniel,
Danieljordani, Daniil naumoff, Danny, DanSays080124, DarkFalls,
Darklink391, Darknesscrazyman, Darkshadowjedi, Darrendeng,
Darthnebett, Davdaott, David Kernow, David Liuzzo, David.Monniaux,
DavidConrad, Davidovic, Dawn Bard, Daz 28, DCGeist, Deiz, Dekisugi,
Delirium, Deltabeignet, Demonator, Dendodge, Der Statistiker, Deranged
Granny, Deskana, Devonreilly, Dhp1080, Digby11, Digitalme, Dingiswayo,
DirtMeister9, Discospinster, Diser, DJ Clayworth, Docu, Dolphin674,
DOMINAT3, Domoarigato3000, Donnie Love, Dookaboo02, Dougy109, Dowj,
Dr. Spikez, Dragonbeast, DragonBot, DragonflySixtyseven, Drdoom6413,
Dreadstar, Dreish, Dreko, Drepanopulos, Drfred, Drini, Drivethru
Movie, Drmaik, DrMalax, Dspradau, DSuser, DumbBOT, DumZiBoT,
DuncanHill, Dupz, Duser1234, DVD R W, Dweller, E dog95, E-boy,
Eachwiped, Eal, East718, Ebockenstette, Eboracum, EDDYISGOD, EdGl,
Edman274, Edward Tremel, Eeamoscopolecrushuva, EgraS, EhJJ, El C,
Elcobbola, Eleassar, Electionworld, Elefuntboy, Elementerre,
Eliman1263, Elisabeth Cottier Fábián, Elk Salmon, Elliskev, Elmyr,
Emijrp, Emilsy, EmxBot, EncycloPetey, Energyfreezer, Englander 13,
Epf, EPO, Erachima, Erebus555, Eric 4001, EricV89, Ertness, Esbob,
EscapingLife, Escarbot, Escheffel, Esimal, Espoo, Etaicq, Etphonehome,
Eup, Euyyn, Everef, Everyking, Excirial, F00P, F20, Fabant, Fabartus,
Fabricationary, Fag Nugget 2, FairuseBot, Fang Aili, Fdewaele, Felix
Dance, FFMG, Fiet Nam, Fightindaman, FiLoCo, Fire walk with me 22,
Fireass22, Fireswordfight, FlaBot, Flatterworld, Flowerparty, Flubeca,
Fly21, Foamyrules, Fool415, Fr3ck13s, Francehater, Francs2000,
Frankskey, Freakofnurture, French Tourist, FrenchCappuccino,
FrenchEntree, Frenchy321, FreplySpang, FreshBulletTime, Fromtiffanys,
Fry010, Funnyhat, FuttBucker11, G. Campbell, Gaby883, Gadfium,
Gagabrain, Gaius Cornelius, Galati, Gangstar, Garden, Garzo, Gbrading,
Geneb1955, Geni, Geoffrey Gibson, Geoffspear, George kush, George The
Dragon, Gethomas3, Gggh, Ggunit, GHe, Giftlite, Gilliam, Gimboid13,
Ginsengbomb, Giving is good, as long as you're getting, Gjd001, Glen,
Gman124, GnevinAWB, GnuDoyng, Godefroy, GodofWiki, Gogo Dodo, Golbez,
GoodDay, Googleyii, GordyB, Gr8opinionater, GraemeL, Graf Bobby,
Grcampbell, Greason, Green Giant, Green01, Gregarchy, Griffjam,
Grifr006, GrinBot, Gringobling, Ground Zero, Gscshoyru, Guaka,
Guilherme Paula, Guillaume75000, Guille franco, Guliolopez,
Guntoaknifefight, Gurch, Gwalarn, Gwernol, Ha!, Haakon,
Habidasherybud, Hakeem.gadi, Halcyonicity, Halo Freak117, Hansag,
Hardouin, Harpman69, Harttwood47, Hawaiian717, Hawkestone, HDCase,
Hdt83, Hemanshu, Henrik.falk, Here because I'm here, Heron,
Heyitspeter, Hiimninja, Historian19, Hjncfkdnmhbjk, Hmains, Hmusseau,
Hodge 2k1, Holod, Honger33, HongQiGong, Hracjk, Hrmanu, HughesJohn,
Huntergggg, Huseyintop, Husond, Hut 8.5, Huxtable71, Huygens 25, I'm
Whipped!!!, I8ASHU, Iantnm, Iapetus, Icestorm815, Icevein the
Alchemist, Icewindfiresnow, Idioma-bot, Idk339, Ido50, Ief, Igo4U,
Ikanreed, Ikiroid, ILikePants, Illnab1024, ILorbb, Ilusiv, Imperium
Europeum, Indisciplined, Inter16, Ioannes Tzimiskes, IronChris,
IronGargoyle, It Is Me Here, Ixfd64, J. 'mach' wust, Jabbottman, Jacek
Kendysz, Jackp, JacobDyer08, Jagged 85, Jamcib, James Kemp,
Jameserven, JamesR, Jamesward22, Jamvan, JanCeuleers, JAnDbot, JaneCG,
Janneman, Jaqu, JayBeeke, Jazzthemonkey, Jbmurray, JCO312, JdeJ,
Jeff79, Jerry, Jesse Viviano, Jesse-inside, JForget, JFreeman,
Jgmdownloads, JhsBot, JHunterJ, Jim G. Smtih, Jimidybo, JIP, Jj137,
Jjbb18, Jjhcap99, Jk31213, Joachim Weckermann, JoanneB, Joaopais,
Jodan2007, Joe.downey, JOEL234, Joelr31, John, John Reaves, John Smith
M.D., Ph.D, John254, Johnaldo, Johnny123456789, Jonarooni,
JonBonWonTon, Jonjames1986, JoonaathaanFR, Jordz, JorisvS, Jorunn,
Jose77, Joseph Solis in Australia, JoshCarter15, Joshua, Jossi,
Jotterbot, Jpeob, Jpgordon, Jpoom2, Jreynoldsme, Jruta, Jtir, JuJube,
Jumbuck, Justin Piga, JustWong, K a r n a, K5620204507, Kaisershatner,
Kajinek32, Kalaha, Kalahiki808, Kaldari, Kandahar69, Katchanra22,
Kazvorpal, Kbdank71, Kbh3rd, Kbolino, Keegan, Keizuko, Kelvinc, Kesac,
Kevin Breitenstein, KhanBot, Khaolian, Khoikhoi, Kikoun, Kill billy 0,
Killah123456789, Kimon, King Krusha, King of Hearts, Kingadam150,
Kintetsubuffalo, Kmg90, Kmusser, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, KocjoBot,
Kool Guy 12, Korenyuk, Korg, Koumed, Kozuch, KrakatoaKatie, Kribbeh,
Kukini, Kungfuadam, Kuroshin, Kuru, Kusma, Kwamikagami, Kwyxz, Kyle
Puckett, KyleRGiggs, Kyoko, Kyuunensoshou, LaaknorBot, Lainez,
Lanternix, Lawrence Cohen, Le boy, Leafsblue, Leafyplant, Leandrod,
Lear 21, Lectonar, LeeDaBee, Left2right, LeoDV, Leon2323, Les
Invisibles, Lesgles, Leslie Mateus, LestatdeLioncourt, Leszek Jańczuk,
Lightbot, Lightmouse, Lights, Lightspeedchick, Ligulem, LilJay0131,
Limetolime, Liowood, Lipton1995, Lissou, Liverpool Scouse, LLarson,
Lo2u, Lockesdonkey, Lokum, LonelyMarble, Lord Vader, Lostlight2,
LOTRrules, Lradrama, Lucasbfr, Lucy.atthis, Luis1972, Luna Santin,
Lutece, Mac, Macintosh User, MaCRoEco, Madapi, Madhaart12, Maelnuneb,
Maelwys, Magore, Maison mere des rumeurs, Majorly, MalafayaBot,
Malarious, Malo, Mammal4, Mandarax, Marcus22, Marcusrm13, MardiGras84,
MarkSutton, Marlow4, Marsonline, MartinBot, MartinBotIII,
Martinwilke1980, Martsax, Marysunshine, Maserati86, MathKnight,
Matilda Sharks, Mattdo1692, MatthieuN, Matwat22, Maxim, Maxjlegs,
Mayumashu, Mbc362, Mbimmler, Mbutts, Mcewan, Mcmillin24, McSly,
Mdotley, Med, Megapixie, Meithal, MelancholieBot, Mendors, MER-C,
Merzhyn, Messedrocker, Metageek, Metropolitan, Metwop, Mfield, Mgill,
Michael Hardy, MichaelMaggs, Michaelsanders, Mickey gfss2007,
Midshipman5109, Mierlo, Miguelzinho, Mihály, Mika293, Mike Beidler,
Mike133742, Mikedudeghim, Minato ku, Miniman6868,
MinnesotanConfederacy, Mistercow, Miyaeymistro, MJCdetroit, Mkooiman,
Mmccalpin, Mnmazur, Moe Epsilon, Moncrief, Monitorer, Monsieur Fou,
Morrad, Motorhead21, Mparent1963, Mr Adequate, Mr. Lefty, MrMarmite,
MrOllie, Msgarrett, Mufka, Musaabdulrashid, Mushroom, Mwanner,
Mwilso24, Mysdaao, MZMcBride, N-edits, N0osphR, Nakiatbrown, Nakon,
Narrasawa, Nat, NawlinWiki, Nelsonmaster, Netscott, Neutrality,
Nevvers, Ng iman, Nick, Nickinuu, NigelR, Nightstallion, Nipeacock,
Nippoo, Nirvana888, Nishkid64, Nitrojo01, NLUT, No Guru, Noah Salzman,
Nobleeagle, NoGringo, Nonagonal Spider, NoSeptember, Nouse4aname,
Nrafter530, Nubbie44, NuclearWarfare, Number1scatterbrain, Numbo3,
Numbo3-bot, Nwbeeson, NYArtsnWords, ObeliskBJM, Obey, Obli, Oblivious,
Ocee, Ocolon, Octane, Odin1899, Ohnoitsjamie, Oli-360, Oliloqui,
Olivetroople, Olivier, OMG NICK, Omglolwtf987, Omicronpersei8, One for
the Lulz, Onslaught 789, Ontimeaccount, Oops-oops, Oosoom, Optichan,
Orange5716, OrphanBot, OwenBlacker, Oxymoron83, Padn, Paleorthid, Pan
Dan, Panamegirl, Paramite, Parislad, Pascal.Tesson, Passawuth,
Patkirkwoood, Patroklis, Paul August, Paul112, Pauly04, Pax:Vobiscum,
PDFbot, Peeperman, Peloneous, Pencilsharpener127, PerfectStorm,
Persian Poet Gal, Personman, Pete okell, Peter jackson, Pethr, Petrux,
Phasechange, Phatom87, Philip Stevens, Philip Trueman, Phillip Fung,
Phlembowper99, Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso, Pierre Landeau,
PierreLarcin2, PipepBot, Pixelface, Pizzaguy4378, Pjrich, Plrk, Po lo
row 789, Pocketsizepete1, Policeman33333, Pomadeguy, Postdlf,
Pravknight, PrimeCupEevee, Profbleak, Provocateur, Pruy0001,
PS2pcGAMER, Pspcast, Purbo T, Python eggs, Qasaqsuyu, Quiensabe,
Quizimodo, Quizimodo (usurped), Qxz, R9tgokunks, Radio Guy, Rama, Ran,
Randoley, Random Person12345, RandomP, Rarelibra, Raymond arritt,
RC-0722, Reaper X, RedCoat10, Redthoreau, Reedy, RegRCN, Remigiu,
Remluremlu, Rex Germanus, RexNL, Reywas92, Rhadamante, Rhyslew,
Riadlem, Riana, Ric36, Richtig27, Rickyrab, Rigil, Rjwilmsi, Rkt2312,
Robbot, Robdurbar, Robert25, RobertAustin, Robertbyrne,
RoboMaxCyberSem, RoboServien, RobotG, Robust45, Rocker321, Rocket000,
RockMFR, Roger222, Ronline, Ronvelig, Roosa, Root Beers, Rory096, Ross
Hetherington, Rossheth, Roux, Roxi2, RoyBoy, Rs09985, Rsm99833, Ruchi
tspl, RussBot, RVD, RVJ, Ryanbbb, RyanGerbil10, Ryulong, S h i v a
(Visnu), Saam 1, Salmonish, Saluyot, Sam916, Samantha555, SAMbo,
Samir, Sammy Mac, Samuel Blanning, Sandahl, Sangil, Sango123,
Sardanaphalus, Sarregouset, SashatoBot, Sasquatch, Savidan,
Sbauman487, ScaldingHotSoup, Sceptre, Schmaximus666, Schwnj, Sciurinæ,
Scott147, Scythian1, Sdornan, Seanzila, SeeSchloss, Sen agri, Serg!o,
SergioGeorgini, Sevela.p, Sfahey, SFC9394, ShakingSpirit, Shalom
Yechiel, Shame On You, Shane69, Shanel, Shannon bohle, Sharemovie,
ShaunWhite, Shawn2082, Shemelle, Shoeofdeath, ShortJason, Sidha,
SieBot, SiefkinDR, Signsolid, Silly rabbit, SilvonenBot, Sinead daly,
Sir Vicious, Sithvincent, Skinnyweed, SkyWalker, Slakr, SLi, Slowking
Man, Sluzzelin, SmackBot, SMC, SMiiL3, SmokeyPirate, SMP, SnowFire,
Sohal 25, SomeHuman, Somethingoranother, SonicAD, Sonjaaa,
Sophadora123, Sophat16, Soul phire, Spellmaster, Sphayros, Spliffy,
Splint480, SpNeo, SpookyMulder, Springwalk, Sprotch, Spudnikku,
SpuriousQ, Squalie21, Squash Racket, SquidSK, Srose, Ssolbergj, Steel,
Stephenb, StephenBuxton, Stevanb, Stevenochs, Strangeways75,
Stuffchanger, Stumpf1, Stupid squrill, Stupid1234567890, Stymphal,
Summerman222, SundarBot, SuperJumbo, Superman12345, Supermath,
Supertask, Suryoye, Suttonplacesouth, Svartkell, SWAdair, SWAPO bud,
Swedish fusilier, Sylvain Mielot, Synthebot, Syvanen, T00h00,
Tabletop, TaBOT-zerem, Tachyon01, Tangerines, Tangotango, Targeman,
Tariqabjotu, TastyCakes, Tawkerbot2, Tawkerbot4, Taytayfasa,
Tburingham, Tellyaddict, Terence, Tgsh2005, Thannad, The Anomebot2,
The idiot, The Rogue Penguin, The Transhumanist, The359,
TheBlazikenMaster, Thebluebeast, TheEditrix2, TheFarix,
TheGeoffMeister, Themelvinsmiley, Themightyquill, Thereen, Thermaland,
Theseeker4, Thetrick, Thetruth77, Thijs!bot, THJames, Thyroidpsychic,
Ticklesjo, TigerShark, Timir2, TinucherianBot II, Titoxd, Tjo1989,
Tkolberg, TN2006, Toddst1, Toll booth, Tom from 8L, Tombseye, Tomeasy,
Tominoo, Tomrulz757, Tomtom9041, Tourtux9, Toussaint, Tpbradbury,
Tpth, Trade4me, Trampton, TransUtopian, Trapnasty, Trasman,
Travelbird, TravisTX, Tregoweth, Trubbles, Tsusurfanami, Tukes,
Tutmosis, TutterMouse, TuvicBot, Twilight Princess 64, Twooars,
TXiKiBoT, UberCryxic, Ucanlookitup, Ulsterdees, Ultratomio, Umbriel,
Uncle Scrooge, Undomiel, Unpopular Opinion, Until It Sleeps,
Ursutraide, User27091, Usergreatpower, Uxtom, Vanis314, Velho,
Verdadero, Vexorg, VEZImoney, Vicksburg360, Vina-iwbot, Vinnielu2,
VinnyMendoza, Virgile1991, Virgule82, VisualBasicImp, Viteazul, VoABot
II, Voice of All, VolatileChemical, VolkovBot, Vrac, Vranak, Vsmith,
Wafulz, Waggers, Wagner51, Wanderer57, Wangi, Wangyunfeng, Wasd,
Wavelength, Weasel or, Webfan29, WeggeBot, WegianWarrior, Weirdy,
Werdna, WereSpielChequers, WGee, Widder, Wigren, Wiki alf, Wikiapg,
Wikid77, WikiDon, Wikifan12345, Wikiklrsc, WIKIP3DEIA, WikiWitch,
WildlifeAnalysis, Wilhelmina Will, Will Aaron 6, William Avery,
Williewildcat, Willingham, Wimt, Winhunter, Witchinghour, Wknight94,
Wmahan, Wonkis, Woohookitty, Wrp103, Wsvlqc, Xchrisblackx, Xezbeth,
Xfogus, Xhienne, Xnuala, Xp54321, Yandman, YankeeDoodle14, Yanksox,
Yanyang1985, Yath, Ybbor, Ychennay, YellowMonkey, Yellwsub, Yemal,
Yitscar, YonaBot, Yosushi, YurikBot, Yvesnimmo, Yvwv, Zachseymour,
Zantastik, Zaxem, ZEEN, Zeeshanqazi94, Zepor, Zero Gravity, Zetud,
Zigzaggle, Zmahmoud, Zocky, Zondor, ZooYorkian, Zpb52, Zscout370,
Zwobot, Zzuuzz, Zé da Silva, Ørretn, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

--
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: RfC: License update proposal

Thomas Dalton
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entire
> history would have to be included with every copy of the article.
> Needless to say, in a print product, this would occupy a very
> significant amount of space. Needless to say, equally, it's a
> significant obligation for a re-user. And, of course, Wikipedia keeps
> growing and so do its attribution records.

Well, the attribution list is about 1/6 the length of the article (in
terms of bytes). Given that it can be in significantly smaller font
size, doesn't have lots of whitespace and has no images, it's going to
take up far less than 1/6 as much space on the page. It will be a
significant amount of space, but not an impractical one (to the extent
that copying and pasting into Word gives meaningful results, the
article takes up 35 pages, the attribution list takes up 2).

> The notion that it's actually useful to anyone in that list is dubious
> at best. A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
> their context in Wikipedia. I think requiring this for, e.g., a
> wiki-reader on countries makes it significantly less likely for people
> to create such products, and I think that the benefit of free
> knowledge weighs greater than the benefit of credit to largely
> pseudonymous individuals who have never, at any point, been promised
> or given to understand that their name would be given a significant
> degree of visibility through the lifetime of the article they
> contribute to.

That's as may be, but I don't think it's our decision to make.

> But, I do not want to rehash every  single argument a hundred times.
> As I said in a different thread, I think it may be useful to include
> at least a preference poll in the licensing vote to better understand
> where different people are on this issue. Attribution-by-URL under
> certain circumstances is consistent with many people's expectations
> and preference, but clearly not with everyone's. If there's a
> predominant conception of an acceptable attribution regime, that would
> make developing a consistent model easier.

Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.

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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
> Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
> requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.

We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
would be to determine whether there's a clear and shared expectation
of what constitutes reasonable attribution requirements or not. It
would be an information gathering poll, rather than a decision-making
vote.

--
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: RfC: License update proposal

Sam Johnston-4
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Hear hear!

"Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad and reusers would always have the option of crediting
authors anyway (perhaps guided by author preferences expressed on the talk
page or some other interface).

Most critically however, "the benefit of free knowledge weighs greater than
the benefit of credit to largely pseudonymous individuals who have never, at
any point, been promised [anything]". Well said - thanks for this
enlightening and comprehensive review of the situation.

I would hope that URLs point to the article itself which is far more useful
(and cleaner) than the history page, and that they would be optional
depending on the medium (eg web/pdf vs paper/print). Aside from that agree
100% with everything you've said and look forward to seeing what the poll
and/or vote.

Sam

http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4C&pg=PT979

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entire
> history would have to be included with every copy of the article.
> Needless to say, in a print product, this would occupy a very
> significant amount of space. Needless to say, equally, it's a
> significant obligation for a re-user. And, of course, Wikipedia keeps
> growing and so do its attribution records.
>
> The notion that it's actually useful to anyone in that list is dubious
> at best. A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
> their context in Wikipedia. I think requiring this for, e.g., a
> wiki-reader on countries makes it significantly less likely for people
> to create such products, and I think that the benefit of free
> knowledge weighs greater than the benefit of credit to largely
> pseudonymous individuals who have never, at any point, been promised
> or given to understand that their name would be given a significant
> degree of visibility through the lifetime of the article they
> contribute to.
>
> The idea that we can meaningfully define the number of cases where
> this requirement is onerous and the number where it isn't through
> simple language is not at all obvious to me. Whether something is
> onerous is in part a function of someone's willingness and ability to
> invest effort, not whether they are creating something that's intended
> for online and offline use. Ironically, heavy attribution requirements
> advantage publishing houses with armies of lawyers over individuals.
> People who don't care about rules will ignore any requirement we set
> (and realistically we have no energy or ability to enforce those
> requirements in most cases); unreasonable requirements primarily
> affect people who are trying to do the right thing, like any
> unnecessary emergence of bureaucracy.
>
> But, I do not want to rehash every  single argument a hundred times.
> As I said in a different thread, I think it may be useful to include
> at least a preference poll in the licensing vote to better understand
> where different people are on this issue. Attribution-by-URL under
> certain circumstances is consistent with many people's expectations
> and preference, but clearly not with everyone's. If there's a
> predominant conception of an acceptable attribution regime, that would
> make developing a consistent model easier.
>
> Erik
>
> (aeropagitica), - 45, -Midorihana-, ..p, 03md, 6ty7u89i, 14 tom 1406,
> 334a, 041744, ^demon, Aaker, Abeg92, Abilityfun, Academic Challenger,
> Acadienne, Acemaroon, Acroterion, ACV777, Addshore, Adrian Robson,
> AdrianCo, Adrille, Aesopos, Aeusoes1, Aflin, AgarwalSumeet, Agateller,
> Agillet, Ahoerstemeier, AirdishStraus, Airhead5, Aitias, Akanemoto,
> AkifSarwar, Alcatar, AlefZet, Alensha, Alethiophile, AlexisMichaud,
> AlexiusHoratius, AlexLibman, Alientraveller, AlleborgoBot, Alll,
> AlnoktaBOT, Alopex, Alphachimp, Alphachimpbot, Alphador,
> Amateaurhistorian411, Ambafrance, AndersBot, AndonicO, Andrew Levine,
> Andrewhalim, AndrewHowse, Andrewpmk, Andy Marchbanks, Andy wakey,
> Andygharvey, Angela, Angelo De La Paz, Anger22, Angusmclellan, Ann
> O'nyme, Annalaurab, Antandrus, Antennaman, AnthroGael, AntiSpamBot,
> AntiVandalBot, Antonrojo, Antwon Galante, Aol kid, Appleseed,
> Aquarelle, Aranherunar, ARC Gritt, AreJay, Arenrce, ArmenG,
> Arnehalbakken, Arnoutf, Aronlevin, Arpingstone, Arsenal666, Arthur
> Rubin, Arwack, ASDFGH, Asidemes, Asm82, Asterion, Atlant, Aude, Avala,
> Avenue, Awien, AxG, AySz88, Azertymenneke, Backburner001, Bahaab,
> BalkanFever, Bamsucks123, Bangvang, Bardhylius, Baristarim, Baronnet,
> Barryob, Basawala, Baseballnut290, Bathrobe, Bazonka, Bcnviajero,
> BdB-18, BDpill359, BECASC, Beerus, Behemoth, Bellahdoll, Benhealy,
> BenoniBot, Bertilvidet, Betacommand, BetacommandBot, Beyond silence,
> BigBrotherIsWatchingYou, Bigordo11, Bigtimepeace, Billinghurst,
> Billposer, Birnuson, Blablablob, Black Kite, Blahblahx12, Blain123,
> Blastwizard, Bluecheese333, BlueMars, Bob not otis, Bob9000,
> Bob1234567890123456789, Bobblewik, Bobo192, Bobthellama9,
> BodhisattvaBot, Bogdan, Bolonka, Bona Fides, Bonadea, Bongwarrior,
> Boomshanka, Boonaone, Booner47, Bootstoots, BorgQueen, Bot-Schafter,
> BOT-Superzerocool, Bota47, BotMultichill, Bourkeazoid, BradBeattie,
> Brahmaputra, Brandon.macuser, Brazo622, Bre29, BrendelSignature,
> Brianga, Brianruyle814, Bridesmill, BritishWatcher, Britsrule06,
> Buchanan-Hermit, Buckunit50, Bunny-chan, Buybooks Marius, Byrialbot,
> C5mjohn, Cactus.man, Caesarjbsquitti, Calliopejen1, Callum+Jacob's
> Fetish, CALR, Caltas, Camulod, Can't sleep, clown will eat me,
> CanadianCaesar, Canadianism, CanadianLinuxUser, Caniago, Captain
> Disdain, CaptainVindaloo, Carl Logan, Carl.bunderson, Carlon,
> Casaubon, CaseyPenk, Casper2k3, Casperdc, Cassini83, Catgut,
> Cbmoney132, Ccady, Ccraccnam, Certh, ChaChaFut, CharlotteWebb, Chase
> me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Check two you, Chicken7890,
> Chickenfrancese, Childzy, Chivista, ChKa, Chlewbot, Chobot, Chochopk,
> Chrisberkin, Chrisboy2006, ChrisCork, ChrisDHDR, ChrisnHouston,
> Chrisritch, ChrisSk8, Christopher Lims, Chriswiki, Chunky Rice,
> Chwech, Ciacchi, CieloEstrellado, CIreland, CJ King, CJLL Wright,
> Ckatz, Ckoicedelire, Cliché Online, Clientele, Cliffhangr, Cloakdeath,
> Closedmouth, Clown57, Clt13, ClueBot, Cmc0, CmdrObot, Coati123,
> Cobaltbluetony, Cokes360, ColonySwiss, Colston20, ComeGetSome,
> Cometstyles, CommonsDelinker, Connormom, Connors11s, Conor's Whipped,
> Conorobradaigh, Consciousnessbliss, Coredesat, Crazycomputers,
> Cremepuff222, CrusherEAGLE, Cst1985, Cubanarmy, Cuenca, Curps,
> Cutsman, Cvene64, Cydebot, D-Day, Daa89563, Daborhe, Daduzi,
> Dagron12345, Daicaregos, Dalv89, Damnit97, Danh, Dani rox 33, Daniel,
> Danieljordani, Daniil naumoff, Danny, DanSays080124, DarkFalls,
> Darklink391, Darknesscrazyman, Darkshadowjedi, Darrendeng,
> Darthnebett, Davdaott, David Kernow, David Liuzzo, David.Monniaux,
> DavidConrad, Davidovic, Dawn Bard, Daz 28, DCGeist, Deiz, Dekisugi,
> Delirium, Deltabeignet, Demonator, Dendodge, Der Statistiker, Deranged
> Granny, Deskana, Devonreilly, Dhp1080, Digby11, Digitalme, Dingiswayo,
> DirtMeister9, Discospinster, Diser, DJ Clayworth, Docu, Dolphin674,
> DOMINAT3, Domoarigato3000, Donnie Love, Dookaboo02, Dougy109, Dowj,
> Dr. Spikez, Dragonbeast, DragonBot, DragonflySixtyseven, Drdoom6413,
> Dreadstar, Dreish, Dreko, Drepanopulos, Drfred, Drini, Drivethru
> Movie, Drmaik, DrMalax, Dspradau, DSuser, DumbBOT, DumZiBoT,
> DuncanHill, Dupz, Duser1234, DVD R W, Dweller, E dog95, E-boy,
> Eachwiped, Eal, East718, Ebockenstette, Eboracum, EDDYISGOD, EdGl,
> Edman274, Edward Tremel, Eeamoscopolecrushuva, EgraS, EhJJ, El C,
> Elcobbola, Eleassar, Electionworld, Elefuntboy, Elementerre,
> Eliman1263, Elisabeth Cottier Fábián, Elk Salmon, Elliskev, Elmyr,
> Emijrp, Emilsy, EmxBot, EncycloPetey, Energyfreezer, Englander 13,
> Epf, EPO, Erachima, Erebus555, Eric 4001, EricV89, Ertness, Esbob,
> EscapingLife, Escarbot, Escheffel, Esimal, Espoo, Etaicq, Etphonehome,
> Eup, Euyyn, Everef, Everyking, Excirial, F00P, F20, Fabant, Fabartus,
> Fabricationary, Fag Nugget 2, FairuseBot, Fang Aili, Fdewaele, Felix
> Dance, FFMG, Fiet Nam, Fightindaman, FiLoCo, Fire walk with me 22,
> Fireass22, Fireswordfight, FlaBot, Flatterworld, Flowerparty, Flubeca,
> Fly21, Foamyrules, Fool415, Fr3ck13s, Francehater, Francs2000,
> Frankskey, Freakofnurture, French Tourist, FrenchCappuccino,
> FrenchEntree, Frenchy321, FreplySpang, FreshBulletTime, Fromtiffanys,
> Fry010, Funnyhat, FuttBucker11, G. Campbell, Gaby883, Gadfium,
> Gagabrain, Gaius Cornelius, Galati, Gangstar, Garden, Garzo, Gbrading,
> Geneb1955, Geni, Geoffrey Gibson, Geoffspear, George kush, George The
> Dragon, Gethomas3, Gggh, Ggunit, GHe, Giftlite, Gilliam, Gimboid13,
> Ginsengbomb, Giving is good, as long as you're getting, Gjd001, Glen,
> Gman124, GnevinAWB, GnuDoyng, Godefroy, GodofWiki, Gogo Dodo, Golbez,
> GoodDay, Googleyii, GordyB, Gr8opinionater, GraemeL, Graf Bobby,
> Grcampbell, Greason, Green Giant, Green01, Gregarchy, Griffjam,
> Grifr006, GrinBot, Gringobling, Ground Zero, Gscshoyru, Guaka,
> Guilherme Paula, Guillaume75000, Guille franco, Guliolopez,
> Guntoaknifefight, Gurch, Gwalarn, Gwernol, Ha!, Haakon,
> Habidasherybud, Hakeem.gadi, Halcyonicity, Halo Freak117, Hansag,
> Hardouin, Harpman69, Harttwood47, Hawaiian717, Hawkestone, HDCase,
> Hdt83, Hemanshu, Henrik.falk, Here because I'm here, Heron,
> Heyitspeter, Hiimninja, Historian19, Hjncfkdnmhbjk, Hmains, Hmusseau,
> Hodge 2k1, Holod, Honger33, HongQiGong, Hracjk, Hrmanu, HughesJohn,
> Huntergggg, Huseyintop, Husond, Hut 8.5, Huxtable71, Huygens 25, I'm
> Whipped!!!, I8ASHU, Iantnm, Iapetus, Icestorm815, Icevein the
> Alchemist, Icewindfiresnow, Idioma-bot, Idk339, Ido50, Ief, Igo4U,
> Ikanreed, Ikiroid, ILikePants, Illnab1024, ILorbb, Ilusiv, Imperium
> Europeum, Indisciplined, Inter16, Ioannes Tzimiskes, IronChris,
> IronGargoyle, It Is Me Here, Ixfd64, J. 'mach' wust, Jabbottman, Jacek
> Kendysz, Jackp, JacobDyer08, Jagged 85, Jamcib, James Kemp,
> Jameserven, JamesR, Jamesward22, Jamvan, JanCeuleers, JAnDbot, JaneCG,
> Janneman, Jaqu, JayBeeke, Jazzthemonkey, Jbmurray, JCO312, JdeJ,
> Jeff79, Jerry, Jesse Viviano, Jesse-inside, JForget, JFreeman,
> Jgmdownloads, JhsBot, JHunterJ, Jim G. Smtih, Jimidybo, JIP, Jj137,
> Jjbb18, Jjhcap99, Jk31213, Joachim Weckermann, JoanneB, Joaopais,
> Jodan2007, Joe.downey, JOEL234, Joelr31, John, John Reaves, John Smith
> M.D., Ph.D, John254, Johnaldo, Johnny123456789, Jonarooni,
> JonBonWonTon, Jonjames1986, JoonaathaanFR, Jordz, JorisvS, Jorunn,
> Jose77, Joseph Solis in Australia, JoshCarter15, Joshua, Jossi,
> Jotterbot, Jpeob, Jpgordon, Jpoom2, Jreynoldsme, Jruta, Jtir, JuJube,
> Jumbuck, Justin Piga, JustWong, K a r n a, K5620204507, Kaisershatner,
> Kajinek32, Kalaha, Kalahiki808, Kaldari, Kandahar69, Katchanra22,
> Kazvorpal, Kbdank71, Kbh3rd, Kbolino, Keegan, Keizuko, Kelvinc, Kesac,
> Kevin Breitenstein, KhanBot, Khaolian, Khoikhoi, Kikoun, Kill billy 0,
> Killah123456789, Kimon, King Krusha, King of Hearts, Kingadam150,
> Kintetsubuffalo, Kmg90, Kmusser, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, KocjoBot,
> Kool Guy 12, Korenyuk, Korg, Koumed, Kozuch, KrakatoaKatie, Kribbeh,
> Kukini, Kungfuadam, Kuroshin, Kuru, Kusma, Kwamikagami, Kwyxz, Kyle
> Puckett, KyleRGiggs, Kyoko, Kyuunensoshou, LaaknorBot, Lainez,
> Lanternix, Lawrence Cohen, Le boy, Leafsblue, Leafyplant, Leandrod,
> Lear 21, Lectonar, LeeDaBee, Left2right, LeoDV, Leon2323, Les
> Invisibles, Lesgles, Leslie Mateus, LestatdeLioncourt, Leszek Jańczuk,
> Lightbot, Lightmouse, Lights, Lightspeedchick, Ligulem, LilJay0131,
> Limetolime, Liowood, Lipton1995, Lissou, Liverpool Scouse, LLarson,
> Lo2u, Lockesdonkey, Lokum, LonelyMarble, Lord Vader, Lostlight2,
> LOTRrules, Lradrama, Lucasbfr, Lucy.atthis, Luis1972, Luna Santin,
> Lutece, Mac, Macintosh User, MaCRoEco, Madapi, Madhaart12, Maelnuneb,
> Maelwys, Magore, Maison mere des rumeurs, Majorly, MalafayaBot,
> Malarious, Malo, Mammal4, Mandarax, Marcus22, Marcusrm13, MardiGras84,
> MarkSutton, Marlow4, Marsonline, MartinBot, MartinBotIII,
> Martinwilke1980, Martsax, Marysunshine, Maserati86, MathKnight,
> Matilda Sharks, Mattdo1692, MatthieuN, Matwat22, Maxim, Maxjlegs,
> Mayumashu, Mbc362, Mbimmler, Mbutts, Mcewan, Mcmillin24, McSly,
> Mdotley, Med, Megapixie, Meithal, MelancholieBot, Mendors, MER-C,
> Merzhyn, Messedrocker, Metageek, Metropolitan, Metwop, Mfield, Mgill,
> Michael Hardy, MichaelMaggs, Michaelsanders, Mickey gfss2007,
> Midshipman5109, Mierlo, Miguelzinho, Mihály, Mika293, Mike Beidler,
> Mike133742, Mikedudeghim, Minato ku, Miniman6868,
> MinnesotanConfederacy, Mistercow, Miyaeymistro, MJCdetroit, Mkooiman,
> Mmccalpin, Mnmazur, Moe Epsilon, Moncrief, Monitorer, Monsieur Fou,
> Morrad, Motorhead21, Mparent1963, Mr Adequate, Mr. Lefty, MrMarmite,
> MrOllie, Msgarrett, Mufka, Musaabdulrashid, Mushroom, Mwanner,
> Mwilso24, Mysdaao, MZMcBride, N-edits, N0osphR, Nakiatbrown, Nakon,
> Narrasawa, Nat, NawlinWiki, Nelsonmaster, Netscott, Neutrality,
> Nevvers, Ng iman, Nick, Nickinuu, NigelR, Nightstallion, Nipeacock,
> Nippoo, Nirvana888, Nishkid64, Nitrojo01, NLUT, No Guru, Noah Salzman,
> Nobleeagle, NoGringo, Nonagonal Spider, NoSeptember, Nouse4aname,
> Nrafter530, Nubbie44, NuclearWarfare, Number1scatterbrain, Numbo3,
> Numbo3-bot, Nwbeeson, NYArtsnWords, ObeliskBJM, Obey, Obli, Oblivious,
> Ocee, Ocolon, Octane, Odin1899, Ohnoitsjamie, Oli-360, Oliloqui,
> Olivetroople, Olivier, OMG NICK, Omglolwtf987, Omicronpersei8, One for
> the Lulz, Onslaught 789, Ontimeaccount, Oops-oops, Oosoom, Optichan,
> Orange5716, OrphanBot, OwenBlacker, Oxymoron83, Padn, Paleorthid, Pan
> Dan, Panamegirl, Paramite, Parislad, Pascal.Tesson, Passawuth,
> Patkirkwoood, Patroklis, Paul August, Paul112, Pauly04, Pax:Vobiscum,
> PDFbot, Peeperman, Peloneous, Pencilsharpener127, PerfectStorm,
> Persian Poet Gal, Personman, Pete okell, Peter jackson, Pethr, Petrux,
> Phasechange, Phatom87, Philip Stevens, Philip Trueman, Phillip Fung,
> Phlembowper99, Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso, Pierre Landeau,
> PierreLarcin2, PipepBot, Pixelface, Pizzaguy4378, Pjrich, Plrk, Po lo
> row 789, Pocketsizepete1, Policeman33333, Pomadeguy, Postdlf,
> Pravknight, PrimeCupEevee, Profbleak, Provocateur, Pruy0001,
> PS2pcGAMER, Pspcast, Purbo T, Python eggs, Qasaqsuyu, Quiensabe,
> Quizimodo, Quizimodo (usurped), Qxz, R9tgokunks, Radio Guy, Rama, Ran,
> Randoley, Random Person12345, RandomP, Rarelibra, Raymond arritt,
> RC-0722, Reaper X, RedCoat10, Redthoreau, Reedy, RegRCN, Remigiu,
> Remluremlu, Rex Germanus, RexNL, Reywas92, Rhadamante, Rhyslew,
> Riadlem, Riana, Ric36, Richtig27, Rickyrab, Rigil, Rjwilmsi, Rkt2312,
> Robbot, Robdurbar, Robert25, RobertAustin, Robertbyrne,
> RoboMaxCyberSem, RoboServien, RobotG, Robust45, Rocker321, Rocket000,
> RockMFR, Roger222, Ronline, Ronvelig, Roosa, Root Beers, Rory096, Ross
> Hetherington, Rossheth, Roux, Roxi2, RoyBoy, Rs09985, Rsm99833, Ruchi
> tspl, RussBot, RVD, RVJ, Ryanbbb, RyanGerbil10, Ryulong, S h i v a
> (Visnu), Saam 1, Salmonish, Saluyot, Sam916, Samantha555, SAMbo,
> Samir, Sammy Mac, Samuel Blanning, Sandahl, Sangil, Sango123,
> Sardanaphalus, Sarregouset, SashatoBot, Sasquatch, Savidan,
> Sbauman487, ScaldingHotSoup, Sceptre, Schmaximus666, Schwnj, Sciurinæ,
> Scott147, Scythian1, Sdornan, Seanzila, SeeSchloss, Sen agri, Serg!o,
> SergioGeorgini, Sevela.p, Sfahey, SFC9394, ShakingSpirit, Shalom
> Yechiel, Shame On You, Shane69, Shanel, Shannon bohle, Sharemovie,
> ShaunWhite, Shawn2082, Shemelle, Shoeofdeath, ShortJason, Sidha,
> SieBot, SiefkinDR, Signsolid, Silly rabbit, SilvonenBot, Sinead daly,
> Sir Vicious, Sithvincent, Skinnyweed, SkyWalker, Slakr, SLi, Slowking
> Man, Sluzzelin, SmackBot, SMC, SMiiL3, SmokeyPirate, SMP, SnowFire,
> Sohal 25, SomeHuman, Somethingoranother, SonicAD, Sonjaaa,
> Sophadora123, Sophat16, Soul phire, Spellmaster, Sphayros, Spliffy,
> Splint480, SpNeo, SpookyMulder, Springwalk, Sprotch, Spudnikku,
> SpuriousQ, Squalie21, Squash Racket, SquidSK, Srose, Ssolbergj, Steel,
> Stephenb, StephenBuxton, Stevanb, Stevenochs, Strangeways75,
> Stuffchanger, Stumpf1, Stupid squrill, Stupid1234567890, Stymphal,
> Summerman222, SundarBot, SuperJumbo, Superman12345, Supermath,
> Supertask, Suryoye, Suttonplacesouth, Svartkell, SWAdair, SWAPO bud,
> Swedish fusilier, Sylvain Mielot, Synthebot, Syvanen, T00h00,
> Tabletop, TaBOT-zerem, Tachyon01, Tangerines, Tangotango, Targeman,
> Tariqabjotu, TastyCakes, Tawkerbot2, Tawkerbot4, Taytayfasa,
> Tburingham, Tellyaddict, Terence, Tgsh2005, Thannad, The Anomebot2,
> The idiot, The Rogue Penguin, The Transhumanist, The359,
> TheBlazikenMaster, Thebluebeast, TheEditrix2, TheFarix,
> TheGeoffMeister, Themelvinsmiley, Themightyquill, Thereen, Thermaland,
> Theseeker4, Thetrick, Thetruth77, Thijs!bot, THJames, Thyroidpsychic,
> Ticklesjo, TigerShark, Timir2, TinucherianBot II, Titoxd, Tjo1989,
> Tkolberg, TN2006, Toddst1, Toll booth, Tom from 8L, Tombseye, Tomeasy,
> Tominoo, Tomrulz757, Tomtom9041, Tourtux9, Toussaint, Tpbradbury,
> Tpth, Trade4me, Trampton, TransUtopian, Trapnasty, Trasman,
> Travelbird, TravisTX, Tregoweth, Trubbles, Tsusurfanami, Tukes,
> Tutmosis, TutterMouse, TuvicBot, Twilight Princess 64, Twooars,
> TXiKiBoT, UberCryxic, Ucanlookitup, Ulsterdees, Ultratomio, Umbriel,
> Uncle Scrooge, Undomiel, Unpopular Opinion, Until It Sleeps,
> Ursutraide, User27091, Usergreatpower, Uxtom, Vanis314, Velho,
> Verdadero, Vexorg, VEZImoney, Vicksburg360, Vina-iwbot, Vinnielu2,
> VinnyMendoza, Virgile1991, Virgule82, VisualBasicImp, Viteazul, VoABot
> II, Voice of All, VolatileChemical, VolkovBot, Vrac, Vranak, Vsmith,
> Wafulz, Waggers, Wagner51, Wanderer57, Wangi, Wangyunfeng, Wasd,
> Wavelength, Weasel or, Webfan29, WeggeBot, WegianWarrior, Weirdy,
> Werdna, WereSpielChequers, WGee, Widder, Wigren, Wiki alf, Wikiapg,
> Wikid77, WikiDon, Wikifan12345, Wikiklrsc, WIKIP3DEIA, WikiWitch,
> WildlifeAnalysis, Wilhelmina Will, Will Aaron 6, William Avery,
> Williewildcat, Willingham, Wimt, Winhunter, Witchinghour, Wknight94,
> Wmahan, Wonkis, Woohookitty, Wrp103, Wsvlqc, Xchrisblackx, Xezbeth,
> Xfogus, Xhienne, Xnuala, Xp54321, Yandman, YankeeDoodle14, Yanksox,
> Yanyang1985, Yath, Ybbor, Ychennay, YellowMonkey, Yellwsub, Yemal,
> Yitscar, YonaBot, Yosushi, YurikBot, Yvesnimmo, Yvwv, Zachseymour,
> Zantastik, Zaxem, ZEEN, Zeeshanqazi94, Zepor, Zero Gravity, Zetud,
> Zigzaggle, Zmahmoud, Zocky, Zondor, ZooYorkian, Zpb52, Zscout370,
> Zwobot, Zzuuzz, Zé da Silva, Ørretn, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ
>
> --
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
>> requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
>
> We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
> would be to determine whether there's a clear and shared expectation
> of what constitutes reasonable attribution requirements or not. It
> would be an information gathering poll, rather than a decision-making
> vote.

You need to be very careful how you interpret it, since it's a
self-selecting sample. The people sufficiently committed to the
projects to vote (eg. not people that edited once or twice and then
left) are more likely than the general population of editors to be
tolerant of bending the rules for the benefit of the projects, I would
think.

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

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Sam Johnston-4
> "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
> attribution gone mad

A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345 ... 10