2009/1/8 Klaus Graf <[email protected]>: > You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution > is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for > the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not > being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If > there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this > wouldn't make sense.
The key point is that the GFDL does not require to give attribution _by_ reproducing the history section. You have not made any case that the history section in GFDL documents was created for purposes of attribution. It wasn't; its purpose is the documentation of changes. The CC-BY-SA has similar attribution _and_ documentation of changes requirements. However, its documentation of changes requirements are not onerous and can be flexibly interpreted (see 3.b in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ). We can build the terms of attribution around existing, established practice that meets reasonable expectations of volunteers. Referring to a copy of the history where reproducing such a list would be unreasonable and onerous is one such practice. I don't see any evidence that it has been historically a reasonable expectation of volunteers to always have a full list of names and changes included with any copy; in fact, it appears like most of the arguments to this effect were made purely for reasons of legal literalism, rather than to satisfy any actual perceived need. With a migration to CC-BY-SA, that argument loses its legal footing. > The ADDENDUM gives the model for attribution for GFDL contributions: And, again, you are supporting the above point: if the copyright notice exists for purposes of attribution, then the history section does not. Whether or not the GFDL requires reproduction of the history section is irrelevant for purposes of considering the attribution requirements as they will exist under CC-BY-SA. What's relevant is that there is continuity in meeting reasonable expectations that people may have had when making their content available under GFDL. > The main problems with linking to the history as attribution: > > * If articles were moved - the links doesn't work and the license expires That should be technically addressable by making history links follow redirects. > * If articles were deleted - dito And the infringement can be pointed out accordingly. > * If the Wikimedia project is offline - dito. For short term intervals, that's a minor issue. For long term periods (e.g. WMF goes bankrupt), again, it's an infringement which can be pointed out and corrected. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
