David Gerard wrote: > 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>: > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>: >>> > > >>>> Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add >>>> some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to >>>> solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the >>>> government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates >>>> there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any >>>> attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for >>>> education of blind persons? >>>> > > >>> There is no legal way to do that nor is there any real benefit in doing so. >>> > > >> If the present options are between linking to the history of article >> at Wikipedia up to the full attribution, I don't see any reason why >> the whole range can't be applied in the ToS. (And, yes, I made a >> mistake with mentioning "no attribution at all".) >> > > > In copyright law and the terms of the CC by-sa, WMF can't actually > promise something like that in terms of what they own and don't own. > > Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses > to a given legal threat model. > > In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or > malicious lunatic who has copyright on a piece of this thing drags > someone into court over it? > I really think it would be worth the time spent for each person who has discussed this matter on this list to go and re-read the interview of Lawrence Lessig (the founder of the CC, for those coming in late to the game), conducted by Wikimedia Quarto a few years ago - and if there are people who have participated in this discussion who have not yet read it, it is *vital* for them to do so, to be informed.
http://tinyurl.com/wmquarto > The reason for the license is so that the defendant can point at the > license and say "I can do this per the license." (And probably "and > per common practice," because law is squishier than Nomic.) > > So the aims of the suggested terms for relicensing will not be to > achieve some theoretical outcome that makes everyone as happy as > possible, but to provide sufficient results to be usable in terms of: > > 1. giving reusers confidence they can defend themselves against a > raving and/or malicious lunatic in court; > 2. not pissing off so much of the community they fork. > To clarify number 2.; you probably mean to say a pissing off a viable cross-section of the community so they fork *en masse* from the _WMF_. There have been been and will always be forks, but these are typically forks from the community as a whole, and not forks that leave the _WMF_ non-viable, or moribund. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
