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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 when it existed in any language version: > > Wikipedia > > > For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned > images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are > lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and > you can find the author. > > I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says > something reasonable for a change? > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So >> > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If >> > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the >> > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit >> > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary >> > problem). >> >> Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only. >> >> A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be >> attributed to them in a flexible manner. >> >> I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on >> every bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would >> consider flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is >> not explicitly listed, fair attribution to them. >> >> I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against >> a hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a >> Uniform Resource Locator anyway? "It specifies where an identified >> resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia) >> >> We can do that without including all the http:// bits. >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 2009/2/3 Brian <[email protected]>: >>> > 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 basically >>> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have >>> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book. >>> >>> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So >>> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If >>> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the >>> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit >>> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary >>> problem). >>> >>> > 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 attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to >>> make >>> > it easier. >>> >>> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work >>> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"? >>> >>> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more >>> practical >>> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL? >>> >>> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the >>> situation. >>> >>> -- >>> geni >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
