On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:14 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
It's bizarre to me that people are so vehemently defending the GFDL when it
was always clearly not the right license from a mechanics point of view.
Personally, I'm not defending the GFDL. In fact, I will make
2009/2/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually, not
collectively. Or later was meant for
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:30 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
under new licenses should be (and is) held by
2009/2/10 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Yeah that argument might work in about 1950. Actual real world
experience suggests that it doesn't work. The first problem you have
is that content doesn't stay in the same format if left to itself. For
example what format is this:
2009/2/10 Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com:
Maybe the copyright laws are living in the wrong century…
In quite a few cases yes.
US and Israeli law are kinda okay and common law based systems tend to
work to an extent (partly because they are more open to what we would
call rule lawyering.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/9 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
reason to assume that there must
Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of the
same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
different license.
Define same license. It really seems to me you want to
define a license as being different if it changes
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
the
same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
different license.
Define same license.
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
the
same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
the
same
The torturous logic can't
disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
and is not departing from that license against the prime
guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
Huh?
See my above reply.
See mine. I was speaking here with regard to the legal aspect
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
The torturous logic can't
disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
and is not departing from that license against the prime
guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
Huh?
See my
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method
Is this intended to imply that this full attribution must be on the same
medium?
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Full attributions are often the only guarantee of clear
ability to reuse. That is a fact. It would be arduous to
clarify where
Brian wrote:
Is this intended to imply that this full attribution must be on the same
medium?
Heavens forfend.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Full attributions are often the only guarantee of clear
ability to reuse.
2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by We believe that
licensing updates that do
2009/2/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
GFDL.
There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
trying to spread FUD here doesn't
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Even on
the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
apparently most people, that
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
should be
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
Start with the license preamble Secondarily, this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
attributions are
This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:
Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the
redirect page would need to be fixed..)
With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
Wikipedia.org/URL was just a reference to my last e-mail, not to confuse
you. Wikipedia.org/Article is more clear.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
Please stop beating
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
With a system that can find the authors of
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
when it existed in any language version:
Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is enough.
Is a link to Wikipedia enough?
no
A link to the article?
No
A list of top
authors?
No
A link to the
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author
collaborative works.
-Robert Rohde
Spend much time
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Um... yes we have... unless full attribution means something
different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
interpret CC-BY-SA
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
be:
Create an authors page associated with each page that contains:
snip
There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could satisfy a large
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
What I mean is options for attribution schemes and similar provisions
that deal in a practical manner with CC documents published
iteratively with a large number of authors. For example, a license
might include a provision: For works published in
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
included in the distribution otherwise you can't
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
be:
Create an authors page associated with each page that contains:
snip
There may be a far simpler (and
I just want to be clear that I think these pseudo-legal interpretations are
holding us back from figuring out what people want.
Hopefully we can discuss the poll questions before they get posted to make
sure they fairly present the options under consideration.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, geni
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:43:23 Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g.
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
Start with the license preamble Secondarily, this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,
Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
have been brought up in court.
They don't come
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
degree of
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
licenses make explicit provisions for massive
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Where the majority of an article is contributed by one user they must
also be attributed by real name.
How does that work? Most Wikipedians work pseudonymously...
Au contraire - the commons pictures of the day for
You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
have been brought up in court. The FSF and CC determine what the licenses
say and whether or
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case.
The license as it is
is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the
Sam Johnston wrote:
- Priority: Freedom / Attribution
This question is a perfect example of a bad question. It does not mean
anything to the respondent and can be interpreted at will later. Freedom
and attribution are not in opposition to each other.
- Do you prefer to attribute: Everyone
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a
Erik Moeller wrote:
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
reasonable to the medium or means provision), commit us to work
Erik Moeller wrote:
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
reasonable to the medium or means provision), commit us to work
52 matches
Mail list logo
