On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/10 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > > > > 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 historical revisions. > > Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every > modified version is first distributed by someone other than the > foundation.
What is that, the "two wrongs make a right" argument? If I distribute illegal bootlegs of Star Wars and then you redistribute them, does that get you off the hook? No, they have a DMCA defense, but not once they receive a DMCA takedown notice. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that > rather than a modified version. > It's *already* a modified version. > > 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 and one reference to the section. > > There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would > be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use > the relevant clause. > Scroll up just a few messages and you see that Erik suggesting they will: "The attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA are reasonably flexible, and we can specify in the terms of use that e.g. with more than five authors, attribution happens through a link to the History page." > > And then, topping it off, there > > are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a > > URL as "attribution". And Creative Commons is working closely with these > > people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance > > CC-BY-SA 4.0 will. > > I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they > are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as > acceptable attribution. They pay attention to moral rights in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. But CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported lets you relicense the work under any of the country-specific licenses. > > 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. > > There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC > image on a postcard. GFDL not so much. > Images can (and are) already licensed under the CC licenses. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
