Sam Johnston wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not that that helps us much, since it is clear >> we are at the cusp of _creating_ the standards for what will >> be "customary" for attribution in such quite novel enterprises >> as Wikipedia. >> > > Exactly. There is nothing 'customary' about massively collaborative > development of works.
Wikipedia is novel in the degree of how fine grained the collaboration is. But there are other works that are somewhat collaborative in nature. And the question then is where the line is where some special yardstick should be applied; and is there one, or should we look more toward the medium used in each specific case. It is clear we already handle different media on WMF in differing ways in many respects. Does the number of contributors on wikipedia really amount to a qualitative change in our nature? An argument for this view might be deduced from the migration clauses wording, but personally I will have to ponder on this issue before I make my mind up. > We can lead the way here by opening the work as > much as possible (or should I say, reasonable) for others to reuse > rather than locking it up with arduous yet largely useless > requirements I really can't agree the requirements would be useless, if they enable interoperability across jurisdictions. (of course it hasn't been exhaustively established yet whether any requirements would be sufficient or necessary - I think that is what we are fumbling around with in the dark here) > (and in doing so creating an opportunity for someone else > to build 'The Free[er] Encyclopedia'). > > Given that the "Free-est Encyclopedia" is going to be a PD encyclopedia by some peoples lights, that isn't going to be a consideration, ever, if we want to remain in the copy-left continuum. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
