A pet peeve of mine; I don't think telling anyone what THEY know or don't know over the internet is worthwhile in most cases.
-Dan On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote: >> the archives are mostly useless as a knowledge base. > > This is false and you know it. Several of these questions *have* been > debated here and with a few simple searches you could be well on > your way to > reading the discussions. > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Tisza Gergő <gti...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I found a few apparent legal problems while translating the license >> update documents. Apologies if these have already been discussed to >> death - I didn't follow earlier debates, and the archives are mostly >> useless as a knowledge base. >> >> == revision not specified == >> >> The TOS says that reusers have to attribute the authors by linking to >> the article. The problem is that such a link will actually point to a >> different article after each edit (that is, the text and author list >> will have been changed). If you find a text copied from Wikipedia on >> the net, and there is no date information, it is very hard to find >> out >> which version of the article it is (and thus who the authors are); if >> the text is a derivative work from a Wikipedia article, then it's >> practically impossible. >> >> Even if one argues that attributing bogus authors is not a problem as >> long as the real ones all appear on the list, the author list can >> change arbitrarily when the article is renamed or deleted and >> rewritten. (Neither of which is apparent even if one looks at the >> page >> history.) >> >> A few possible solutions to that: >> - require reusers to permalink to the revision they used; change the >> totally unhelpful error message that is shown when one follows a link >> to a deleted version. (Probably not a very good idea as it messes up >> caching. Also, bad usability: most of the people who click such a >> link >> don't care about authors and original version one bit, and just want >> to see/edit the current version of the article.) >> - develop some syntax that shows the current version of the article, >> but with a little message on top saying "you have followed a link >> from >> a page reusing an older version of this article. You can see the most >> recent version of the article; if you want to see the original click >> here." (Maybe through some fragment id trick and javascript so it can >> go through the cache?) We would still have to address links to >> deleted >> versions. >> - require reusers to give date/revision of the page along with the >> url. Make some sort of search interface to find the text and/or >> author >> set of an article based on that information. >> >> == CC version incompatibilities == >> >> Copyright policy now says "You may import any text from other sources >> that is available under the CC-BY-SA license", which is incorrect for >> to reasons. First, CC-BY-SA-1.0 (used, for example, by Wikitravel) is >> not compatible with anything but itself (as they forgot to include >> the >> ("or any later version" part). Second, different versions and >> jurisdictions of CC are not quite compatible: for example if a wiki >> has an article under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, then uploading that to >> Wikipedia >> (which will use CC-BY-SA-3.0 unported) is actually a breach of the >> license. You could change the version or jurisdiction when you create >> an adaptation (that is, you make changes significant enough to be >> considered on of the authors), but not when you just redistribute the >> work. (I doubt anything could be done about this beyond prodding CC >> to >> release a saner version of their license soon.) >> >> == edit summary cannot contain links == >> >> The currently proposed editing policy says: >> >> "If you import text under the CC-BY-SA license, you must abide by the >> terms of the license; specifically, you must, in a reasonable >> fashion, >> credit the author(s). Where such credit is commonly given through >> page >> histories (such as wiki-to-wiki copying), it is sufficient to give >> attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page >> history, when importing the content." >> >> (which BTW should be rephrased more clearly - does it mean you can >> use >> the edit summary if you import text from another wiki, but not when >> you do it from any other web page?) >> The problem is that the edit summary does not allow external links: >> they will show as plain text, and it would be hard to argue that that >> is reasonable to the medium. (This one is easy to fix: allow them, >> and >> rely on rev_delete and capctha to stop edit summary spam instead.) >> Furthermore, a long link does not necessarily fit into the summary >> (which is 255 bytes long, and there are a number of web pages that >> use >> ugly links with loads GET parameters that are longer than that), so >> some sort of separate attribution log might be more reasonable. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l