Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/16 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net: So, if I want to give to give a mug with an erotic description of the Kama Sutra to my girl friend, I also need to give her this list of authors. Are there really people here who would be so law-abiding that they would threaten their love-life with that kind of anti-climax? I think that can be resolved by invoking the rule: It's only illegal if you get caught. It's completely inconceivable that the copyright holder(s) would find out about your private gift to your girlfriend (unless she tried to sell it after a messy breakup, perhaps...), so you are really only answerable to your conscience. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote: Anthony wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: Anthony wrote: a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article or other page that contains the authorship information of the articles you are re-using. For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all. Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is no attribution at all in an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not suddenly become devoid of meaning just because you're using a medium where you can't follow a hyperlink. I could just as soon say that print media aren't acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles because you can't check them by following a hyperlink, it's the same logic. It's not the same logic at all. A reference, by the very definition of the term, refers to something outside the work itself. In its own way, attribution by definition refers to something outside the work itself. Even if you reduce me to the contents of my user page on Wikipedia, that page is not an actual part of the Wikipedia articles I've helped write, and that holds true regardless of what you think is the right way to be doing attribution. That's even the case online, with hyperlinks and all. I suppose it's not the same logic at all in the same way that a URL is no attribution at all then? In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors. That I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain situations (e.g. where that list is just a click away) does not create a slippery slope whereby it is OK for any reuser to omit this list of names in any situation they deem appropriate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors. That I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain situations (e.g. where that list is just a click away) does not create a slippery slope whereby it is OK for any reuser to omit this list of names in any situation they deem appropriate. In that case, surely the letter of the license (and having touched all bases first as far as getting the reuser to do the right thing) is all the aggrieved contributor needs. WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0. It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that matter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0. It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that matter. No, but you did with the or later. Stop FUDding. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Thomas Dalton wrote: I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're talking about what forms of attribution are acceptable for people using our content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that attribution by URL is acceptable for people using the content under CC-BY-SA. But who says it's our content? Maybe another wiki wrote articles about every Ukrainian action hero or all butterfly species in Zambia, under CC-BY-SA, and we imported articles from there into Wikipedia. And then someone mirrors Wikipedia. Why should that mirror get away with just crediting Wikipedia's URL for each article? And what if this mirror site is another wiki (such as Wookieepedia) that also creates new content and gets mirrored? Why should the next mirror not get away with just crediting Wookieepedia's URL for each article? Jussi-Ville used the analogy with books (the content) and libraries (the websites, or what I previously called the space between the copies [1]). Mirrors are copying the books. But is Wikipedia's website (as opposed to its content) really a book, or is it just another library? [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050824.html -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: I've never pressed submit on a button which read GFDL 1.2 or later. Try again. The edit page has said or later as long as I can remember. Are you claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when? It still doesn't. There is a place where it says Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, which was added in March 2007. So it does say it... you are contradicting yourself. What did it say before March 2007? If it just said GFDL (which I think is likely), then that implicitly means or later (the license text makes that clear). But CC-by-sa is not published by the FSF, and the word published, according to Wiktionary, is in the past tense (and I have not clicked submit since Version 1.3 was released). So that argument fails in many ways, before even getting to the problems with GFDL 1.3 itself. Obviously when reusing it you need to reuse it under a license that was published in the past, that's what is meant by the use of the past tense and I think that is perfectly clear to any reasonable person. We know CC-BY-SA isn't an FSF license, the FSF have released a new version of GFDL allowing relicensing under CC-BY-SA (as you well know), so what are you claiming, that the or later part is invalid or that a license which allows relicensing under a different license is invalid? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: I've never pressed submit on a button which read GFDL 1.2 or later. Try again. The edit page has said or later as long as I can remember. Are you claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when? It still doesn't. There is a place where it says Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, which was added in March 2007. So it does say it... you are contradicting yourself. It doesn't say or later. It says or [...] later [...]. What did it say before March 2007? If it just said GFDL (which I think is likely), then that implicitly means or later (the license text makes that clear). Immediately before March 2007 it said GFDL. The full history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarningaction=history But CC-by-sa is not published by the FSF, and the word published, according to Wiktionary, is in the past tense (and I have not clicked submit since Version 1.3 was released). So that argument fails in many ways, before even getting to the problems with GFDL 1.3 itself. Obviously when reusing it you need to reuse it under a license that was published in the past, that's what is meant by the use of the past tense and I think that is perfectly clear to any reasonable person. I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under a license that doesn't yet exist. We know CC-BY-SA isn't an FSF license, the FSF have released a new version of GFDL allowing relicensing under CC-BY-SA (as you well know), It allows an MMC Site (presumably, the WMF) to republish the work under CC-BY-SA. But the WMF has had its rights under the GFDL revoked, and the permission to republish doesn't extend to third parties anyway. so what are you claiming, that the or later part is invalid or that a license which allows relicensing under a different license is invalid? Both, and then some. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/16 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under a license that doesn't yet exist. Yes, because Eben Moglen (who would have cleared the or later provision) knows so much less about how these things work than you do. I find myself oddly unconvinced. You are FUDding. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Anthony, If you don't mind, let's be specific. Which edits are yours? (Were you User:Anthony?) Who, if anyone, do you believe is presently infringing your rights such that you feel corrective action is necessary to satisfy your expectations as an author? What action do you want to see taken? As a wiki editor, which existing infringements of your work are most troubling to you? Assuming the licensing proposal is adopted and WMF declares that all of their properties are dual licensed: Are you likely to complain to reusers who rely on that in using work that you edited? Would you seriously consider taking legal action against the WMF or any third party even if they are following the CC-BY-SA license in good faith? It is certainly useful to talk about relicensing in general and abstract terms, since most of the editors involved aren't here to comment. However, for months now you have portrayed yourself as a specifically aggrieved party. That being the case, I would like to know where/why you believe this to be the case, what you have tried to do about it, and what you think we (in the broad sense of the WMF and/or the Wikimedia volunteer community) might do about it to address your concerns. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:49:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to
license your contributions under 1.2 or any later version.
Any later version published by the FSF.
Therefore if the Foundation moves to 1.3, the license transfers.
Interesting theory. What happens if the Foundation doesn't move to 1.3?
As 1.3 is a dual license, its dual licensed.
{{dubious}}
___
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Anthony subthread (was Proposed revised attribution language)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony, If you don't mind, let's be specific. I have no problem with being specific, but it probably isn't in my best interest to answer some of your questions. Sorry. Which edits are yours? (Were you User:Anthony?) Unless something changed recently, I believe I still am [[User:Anthony]]. I've also contributed under many other accounts (mostly single-purpose accounts, though I have a few longstanding sockpuppets, none of which I've used after the release of GFDL 1.3). Your other questions seem to be in the form of a negotiation. I'm willing to negotiate, but only with people who can speak on behalf of the party I'm negotiating with, and not on a public mailing list. I'm perfectly willing to answer questions about which of my rights I feel are being violated, but I'd rather not get into publicly ordering these rights and measuring their importance to me (just as I wouldn't want a used car dealer to know how bad I really want that particular car). Implicit in my questions was an honest desire to understand your specific concerns and help address them if possible. Yes, some of that comes in the form of prioritization and trying to distinguish between what you see as major issues and what are minor complaints (many people can probably think of minor complaints about the GFDL and its use, but those same people rarely feel this requires that one stop editing). If you feel uncomfortable spelling out your concerns, then I'll respect that and move on. Though you obviously know that if you are unable to take your concerns to the community, then that seriously restricts the number of people who could even consider helping you. I get the impression that there are things you do want from Wikipedia/WMF which haven't been addressed, and I wish you well in finding some resolution. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com: 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l You're both cluttering our inboxes with your inane back-and-forth. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
Some people on this list have had a negative reaction to the licensing proposal. Sometimes this arises from different understandings of what the new license will mean (i.e. issues of interpretation). More often it seems the core issues are different opinions about whether the change is desirable (i.e. issues of personal preference). For example, if you believe the license text ought to appear alongside every copy, then you have a personal preference for the GFDL. The licensing update FAQ [1] has largely been written in the voice of the Foundation. It explains what is going on, what the advantages of the transition are, and what some of the implications are. However, it does not generally speak for the opposition, nor does it explain why anyone would prefer the GFDL, even though some people on this list clearly do. Previous authors on this listserve have made at least two prior calls for opponents of this process to express their views in writing by producing some form of complementary summary document. Thus far that has not happened. The draft timeline for the licensing update [2] calls for the documentation to be finalized (or nearly so) this week so that translation efforts can proceed in earnest. At a philosophical level I believe that opponents of this measure deserve the opportunity to present their reasons why, but that doesn't mean the whole process can be delayed indefinitely. So if anyone does want to write an opposition viewpoint, I think they would be well served to do so soon. -Robert Rohde [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
