On 11 Jan 2009, at 21:46, Erik Moeller wrote:
The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
different purposes:
* author credit on the title page;
* author copyright in the copyright notices;
* author names for tracking modifications in the history section.
...
In
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?
Because the copyright owners is often a very long list. The notice:
All text is
2009/1/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
2009/1/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
2009/1/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your
weasel-word of direct is supposed to mean).
The GFDL requires crediting principal authors, and it requires change
tracking. Given the obvious intent of the principal authors clause to
limit
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
A prize for best cross-media reuse of content - I love it. I will
contribute to the prize pool one large gnu, and one piece of similarly
huggable CC swag, signed by free-content luminaries To Be Named.
--SJ
How does
2009/1/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
With that comment you would certainly win a bobblehead of Richard
Stallman if such a thing were available. This could be awarded for a
single-minded devotion to whatever topic is at hand to an extent where
all shmoos and tribbles march past
2009/1/11 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Granted, including full change histories is overkill
Thanks for acknowledging this.
The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
different purposes:
* author credit on the title page;
* author copyright in the copyright notices;
*
2009/1/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
What we are left with, then, is to come up with attribution guidelines
in the context of CC-BY-SA which are consistent with reasonable
expectations and established practices for author credit per the GFDL.
False. Read the CC-BY-SA again. Neither of
2009/1/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/1/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
What we are left with, then, is to come up with attribution guidelines
in the context of CC-BY-SA which are consistent with reasonable
expectations and established practices for author credit per the GFDL.
False.
2009/1/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I don't understand, which terms don't appear and how is that relevant?
CC-BY-SA allows authors to specify how they wish to be attributed, so
we can (at least try to) choose a way that ought to be acceptable to
people that have accepted the GFDL.
On Saturday 10 January 2009 10:02:11 Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
expressly
Hoi,
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it. The reason why the GFDL needs to be replaced
is because we want to be better able to share. At that the GFDL
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
It's not required unless the work is published anyway.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you
do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it.
But I own the copyright
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review
Corporation).
If you licensed it
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
Brian wrote:
Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
dumps?
Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one
owns the copyright on them.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Brian
Hoi,
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
It is for this reason easy to argue that the WMF has the copyright on the
collection. Given that it is a composite of separately copyrighted
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
Huge effort is not copyrightable.
And simplistic arguments are not convincing. If you would like to explore
the space with me, you'll have to try more than one sentence at a time.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just sweat of the
brow because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection.
It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different
jurisdiction.
Other laws do have similar provisions,
Ha?
-- White Cat
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last
name
from all Wikimedia projects.
So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last
name?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to
create.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
license I have granted them.
Sure, but
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
license I have granted them.
I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL
with
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia would only satisfy the license if the author specifically
said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to
designate
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
what was you complaint about?
Being querulous?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution
should be reasonable reasonable to the medium or means. Quite apart
from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system
the range of medium
I think this is probably true.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki,
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
geni wrote:
2009/1/9 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
better position to understand what the license requires than most
reusers.
The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
understand. The WMF cannot
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
any
license I have granted them.
I
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
where I am the last author or for
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two
copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the
copyright office.
No such requirement exists
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're
even
arguably distributing verbatim
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather
not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
You are completely free to oppose the switch because you
Erik Moeller wrote:
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
possible and linking to the version history where that would be
onerous) is completely consistent with
1) established practices on Wikipedia;
2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation
geni wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
It isn't clear what it means.
There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in
a section name
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the expressly provided (GFDL), there is the tradition
of how Wikipedia and other
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mike I have made some updates to the QA today:
I saw your answer. Thanks. Transition period began at the time of
announcing license migration up to the license migration; so, we are
in the transition period. Conservatively
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
be necessary. We
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing
one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have
taken place on this list that this is
Anthony wrote:
There are very few offline reusers of Wikipedia content. I know of none
that are using more than de minimis portions of my content without
attributing me. If you know of any, please, tell me who they are, and I'll
send a cease and desist to them.
This switch to CC-BY-SA is
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required.
Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.
Um... yes it is...
I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether Original Author is, in the
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond
listing
one or more URLs. In fact, it's
I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused to
facilitate the application of it.
What? Wikia predates WMF? News to me...
___
foundation-l mailing
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal
re-use.
http://download.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Thomas Dalton
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused
to
facilitate the application of it.
What? Wikia predates WMF? News
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal
re-use.
2009/1/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal
re-use.
IANAL, but I think you need to
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me the
answer!).
My preference would be: all
I *think* I was thinking clearly -- I didn't mean to suggest that it
would be trivial for an editor massively concerned about the
changeover to remove all his or her edits. Obviously, for some editors
it would be practically impossible. For others it might be possible,
and for still others
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over
the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for
2009/1/8 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have
no
license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the
GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights
Hoi,
The first question, in my opinion the most relevant, is the one that you do
not answer.. What is it that you aimed to achieve and why is copyright so
important to you?
In my opinion your current behaviour is as destructive as that of any other
owner of proprietary information. I do not
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
have
no
license to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
The specific reason I would claim that the telephone directory case does not
apply is that the dumps are in a machine readable format that is intended to
be read by one, and only one, machine: MediaWiki. There must be
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Err you realise that there is at present no GFDL 1.3 only content on
wikipedia (there is a very small amount on commons due a
misunderstanding)?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
have no
license to distribute them (you might have once had a
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the
GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for
automatic termination in the event that the licensed material is
(inter alia)
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a)
ban him in perpetuity from
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
edits contributed by
And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
what everyone ignores.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony
2009/1/8 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
whether to support
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
adequate might end up being an important issue in the
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now read the version in
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since any advice we give ought
to be at a level that is clearly black and white,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since
Mike I have made some updates to the QA today:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers
Please let me know or edit the page if you feel further clarifications
and answers are needed. Otherwise I'll prepare a translation request,
probably on Friday.
Meanwhile, I'm
I'm curious (and not arguing it is the case) why due diligence here does not
involve e-mailing every person who has ever made an edit and has their
e-mail address in their profile.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mike I have made some updates to the QA
80 matches
Mail list logo
