2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can
you
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
Ray Saintonge writes
Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my
right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee going to
jail.
So much for the right to bear arms! :-)
Oh, the
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge writes
Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my
right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee
Anthony wrote:
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last
paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Per Eric Partridge's Origins, both words are Latin in origin. Moral
is from mores the plural of mos indicating a way of carrying
oneself, hence
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can
you
defend people's constitutional rights if you
Anthony writes:
Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made
up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in
the
United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold
these
truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by
George Herbert wrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
distinct from copyright owners etc.
The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a term of the
art in that
Anthony wrote:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you
defend people's constitutional rights if you think
On Thursday 22 January 2009 23:23:17 Andrew Whitworth wrote:
* I make the blanket assumption that everybody here is being perfectly
reasonable.
What an unreasonable assumption! :)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you
Thomas Dalton writes:
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@well.com:
Thomas Dalton writes:
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize moral
Anthony writes:
Anthony writes:
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
right
to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
have it.
I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
anyone, but I promise I have it!
Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
Thomas Dalton writes:
I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the
absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
have any.
[snip]
There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn
that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to
point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
the world outside the legal profession (and, indeed, if you were a
member of the legal
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to
point out where they are used mistakenly.
You have a moral obligation? I thought
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to
point out where
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
A single URL could point to a list of all contributors for all
articles.
Not under your proposal attribution via reference to page histories
is acceptable if there are more than five authors.
I do agree with you, Mike and others who have pointed out
Thomas Dalton writes:
I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
anyone, but I promise I have it!
Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised
by anyone.
So you recognize
Anthony writes:
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike.
Your last
paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Thanks. But surely you don't expect me to tutor you on moral rights
jurisprudence when the materials you need are widely available
elsewhere.
All this comparing, ahem, brain sizes is very interesting - but ultimately
not useful, and detrimental to the ideal tone and purpose of this list.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Michael Bimmler writes:
Please Stop It.
Sure, Michael.
I confess it sometimes amuses me to argue with trolls, but I have no
interest in continuing to argue publicly when it ceases to amuse
anyone else but me.
My apologies. I'll try to keep things more in hand in the future.
--Mike
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it,
is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic.
___
foundation-l mailing list
George Herbert writes:
There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as
counsel,
that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf.
Godwin's
Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago
than I
care to remember at the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
distinct from copyright owners etc.
If you look at the context
On Thursday 22 January 2009 00:20:14 Erik Moeller wrote:
The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
preferred implementation would look
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the
principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL
is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the
proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
preferred
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
preferences to the licensing vote to better
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning
the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at
that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example,
this may be the
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the history
tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright
statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the real name preference,
and it seems like you could bring
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning
the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at
that URL is something that we may change
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the
history
tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright
statement at the bottom of each article,
On Thursday 22 January 2009 20:55:21 Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by
mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that The GFDL
1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in
a slightly more legal way. What do you mean by this?
What I mean is that if we consider the proposal
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
preferences to the licensing vote to better
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that The
GFDL
1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just
in
a slightly more legal way. What
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the
principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL
is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the
proposed list
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows
people who consider the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to actually
be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
This is a constructive and useful proposal, thank you.
I agree with Milos when he states in another thread that we need to
think further about a solution that is satisfactory to a greater
number of people, at least when it comes to standardizing
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
(It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having
to go to court over it...)
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
(It would be nice if we could agree it between us
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it
allows
people who consider the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
(It would be nice if
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
I agree that at least the varied interpretations
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
I
Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
content, new
Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
You
Thomas Dalton writes:
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating
your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of
Anthony writes:
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't?
Online when there's an offline copy clearly isn't okay.
Clearly because you have a legal right that distinguishes between
online copies and offline copies? Please explain. (Once
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Thomas Dalton writes:
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating
your concern in
geni writes:
(BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier
for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
Nope. The to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories
is acceptable if there are more than five authors. bit will mean that
it is
Erik Moeller wrote:
For example, if WMF decides that a guaranteed by-name attribution is
not reasonable, scalable, and detrimental to the goals of WMF, it can
responsibly tell people that. People who have made past edits could be
given the option to have _those_ edits always attributed by
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
listed
I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's
opt-out if probably won't make things
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
listed
I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:58:31 -0800
From: Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 55aa3395-ec88-4ec2-8d36-efda1967a...@wikimedia.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
allowing editors who insist on
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
If we assert a default sense of the community that the URL is reasonable,
and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy
readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect
any author's rights or
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.comwrote:
His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely.
And it will be... in the edit summary for the import which is in turn
referenced either directly or indirectly in the attribution.
The critical difference is
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
E our attribution model, which is the
result of many months of deliberation and consultation,
Evidences?
However, we think that the notion that print-outs of massively
collaborative works should carry author attribution over multiple
pages, that
What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating
your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
legal rights.)
Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
How are you
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
content,
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there
since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about
50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I
find it questionable that that would count as an
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
right
to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
Please read
By repeating false things they will be not more true.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
Attribution in the GNU FDL is done by copyright notices or the section
called
2009/1/21 Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com:
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
I've already explained our position on this issue in the prior thread
on the topic; we
73 matches
Mail list logo
