Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
That's all I have.. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jiri Hofman <[email protected]> wrote: > You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the > list > of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees > the work will stay free even when everything else collapses. > > No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how > rights > of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are > important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think > otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA. > > By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just > providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the > minimal rights of authors. > > The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of > the > major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license > as > GFDL was chosen. > > BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because > they > are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with > it > which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make > things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated. > > Jiri > > > On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote: > > Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware > that > > we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list. > > > > The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to > > and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. > If > > it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host > a > > stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to > > the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in > > which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns. > > You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of > view - > > that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF > is > > not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the > > potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the > > knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a > > serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to > the > > medium and means, is a more reasonable approach. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
