Anthony wrote:
>
> That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
> under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually, not
> collectively. "Or later" was meant for minor changes o
2009/2/10 Petr Kadlec :
> Maybe the copyright laws are living in the wrong century…
In quite a few cases yes.
US and Israeli law are kinda okay and common law based systems tend to
work to an extent (partly because they are more open to what we would
call rule lawyering. Treating films as a serie
2009/2/10 geni :
> Yeah that argument might work in about 1950. Actual real world
> experience suggests that it doesn't work. The first problem you have
> is that content doesn't stay in the same format if left to itself. For
> example what format is this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gove
2009/2/10 Anthony :
> The text, of both the GPL and the GFDL, states the purpose of "or later"
> quite clearly.
>
> "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU
> Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be
> similar in spirit to the present
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:30 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/10 Anthony :
> > That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> > relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
> > under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually,
> n
2009/2/10 Anthony :
> That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
> under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually, not
> collectively. "Or later" was meant for minor changes
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:14 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> It's bizarre to me that people are so vehemently defending the GFDL when it
> was always clearly not the right license from a mechanics point of view.
Personally, I'm not defending the GFDL. In fact, I will make any reasonable
effort to
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > >> The torturous logic can't
> > >> disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
> > >> and is not departing from that license against the prime
> > >> guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Huh?
> >
> >> The torturous logic can't
> >> disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
> >> and is not departing from that license against the prime
> >> guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Huh?
> >
>
> See my above reply.
See mine. I was speaking here with reg
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >>
> >>> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> same license,
Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
>>> dif
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of
> the
> > same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
> > different license.
> >
>
> Define "same license". It real
Anthony wrote:
> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of the
> same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
> different license.
>
Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to
define a license as being different if it chang
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Delirium :
>
>
>> At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has
>> included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989,
>> and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as
>> far as I can find, a s
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Delirium :
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> >>
> >>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
> >>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
> >>> believ
2009/2/9 Thomas Dalton :
> Have any of the updates been as drastic as the latest? Was there
> anything in the previous updates that anyone would be likely to object
> to?
It's not the first time that licenses have merged or even the first
time a license has merged with CC (that would go to the EFF
2009/2/9 Delirium :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>>
>>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
>>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
>>> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being
>>> unab
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Delirium wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> >
> >> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
> >> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
> >> believe that the "or later" language doe
2009/2/9 Delirium :
> At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has
> included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989,
> and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as
> far as I can find, a single ruling invalidating that l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
>> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being
>> unable to prove a negative.
>
Brian wrote:
> Is this intended to imply that this full attribution must be on the same
> medium?
>
>
Heavens forfend.
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Full attributions are often the only guarantee of clear
>> ability to reuse. That is a
Is this intended to imply that this full attribution must be on the same
medium?
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Full attributions are often the only guarantee of clear
> ability to reuse. That is a fact. It would be arduous to
> clarify where it might not be. I a
Sam Johnston wrote:
> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
> quotes, most physical mediums, compilations, etc.) and partial
> attributions are in many ways worse than no attributions at all,
> su
Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>> I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
>> ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
>> done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
>> degree
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
> > 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
> >> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
> >> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
> > There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe th
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
>>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
>> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
>> licensing updates that do no
2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
> licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/4 Anthony :
>
>> Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
>> really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
>> GFDL.
>
>
> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
> trying to spread
2009/2/4 Anthony :
> Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
> really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
> GFDL.
There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
- d.
Sam Johnston wrote:
> - Priority: Freedom / Attribution
This question is a perfect example of a bad question. It does not mean
anything to the respondent and can be interpreted at will later. Freedom
and attribution are not in opposition to each other.
> - Do you prefer to attribute: Everyone
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Um... yes we have... unless "full attribution" means something
>>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
>>> of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
>>> in
.1% is a very large sample, statistically speaking.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> > I only think a poll of the community could settle the issue. Is
> > there any point in requiring full attribution if only 0.001% of the
> > comm
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chad wrote:
> I only think a poll of the community could settle the issue. Is
> there any point in requiring full attribution if only 0.001% of the
> community desires it? If 75+% of the community thinks that a
> single mention that an article is "from Wikipedia" i
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> We are moving to the CC-BY-SA license to improve compatibility and
> foster reuse, yes?
Supposedly, but any attempt to loosen the attribution requirements hinders
both compatibility (external works from authors who want attribution now
can't
2009/2/4 Sam Johnston :
> That case is completely different - it's about "misappropriation of a
> software program by a company that publishes model train hobbyist
> software"[2], not a community seeking to relicense its 'own' content.
>
The community has no legal standing. From the POV of the cou
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
> likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case.
> The license as it is
> is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM, geni wrote:
> Flexibility has it's limits.
Right, and this one has a deadline that's fast approaching. Here's
some things I'd like to know from a poll:
- Demographics?
- Contributions to date: Authored articles / Edited articles /
Uploaded media / Minor edits /
I just want to be clear that I think these pseudo-legal interpretations are
holding us back from figuring out what people want.
Hopefully we can discuss the poll questions before they get posted to make
sure they fairly present the options under consideration.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, geni
2009/2/3 Brian :
> You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
>
> However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
> determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
> have been brought up in court.
They don't come up often but that do
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
> What I mean is options for attribution schemes and similar provisions
> that deal in a practical manner with CC documents published
> iteratively with a large number of authors. For example, a license
> might include a provision: "For works published in multiple iteration
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> "Where the majority of an article is contributed by one user they must
>> also be attributed by real name."
>
> How does that work? Most Wikipedians work pseudonymously...
Au contraire - the commons pictures of the day for the last month f
You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
have been brought up in court. The FSF and CC determine what the licenses
"say" and whether or
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston :
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
>> be:
>>
>> Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains:
>
>
> There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
> be:
>
> Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains:
There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could satisfy a large
segment of the pro
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
>> Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
>> movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
>> licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author
>> collaborative works.
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Um... yes we have... unless "full attribution" means something
>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
>> of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
>> interpret CC-BY-SA as requir
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:43:23 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> > On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> > Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
>> > attributions are necessary.
>>
>> Yes they have.
>
> Citation?
Thomas Dalton.
>> - Partial attribution creates opportunities for external conflict
>> (think
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
> Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
> movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
> licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author
> collaborative works.
>
> -Robert Rohde
Spend much time dealing with lice
2009/2/3 Chad :
> I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
> ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
> done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
> degree of attribution, then obviously that takes precedence over
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad wrote:
> I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
> ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
> done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
> degree of attribution, then obviously
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Chad :
> > We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
> > Is a link to Wikipedia enough?
>
> no
>
> > A link to the article?
>
> No
>
> > A list of top
> > authors?
>
> No
>
> > A link to the full history?
>
> If
2009/2/3 Chad :
> We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
> Is a link to Wikipedia enough?
no
> A link to the article?
No
> A list of top
> authors?
No
> A link to the full history?
If the full history is on your website then it depends on what you are doing.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> I've seen this point made at least three times today.
>>
>> What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
>
> It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
> included in
We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
Is a link to Wikipedia enough? A link to the article? A list of top
authors? A link to the full history? Include the full history? There's
a lot of varying opinions on this list, and its very easy to see that
any sort of compro
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> - It is impossible to reliably determine the top contributors in a
> mechanical fashion, because:
> - There are no reliable metrics for identifying 'top contributors'
> (e.g. edit count vs wikiblame vs creator vs something else?) but:
> -
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I've seen this point made at least three times today.
>
> What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
included in the distribution otherwise you can't guarantee the person
receiv
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
> > With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no
> matter
> > when it
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
> >
> > Please stop beating the de
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
> attributions are n
2009/2/3 Brian :
> With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
> when it existed in any language version:
Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.
___
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 wrote:
> This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
> reasonable with current tech:
>
>> Wikipedia.org/URL with the
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
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested t
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
attributions are necessar
> 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 someon
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> 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,"
Interesting you should ch
2009/2/3 Brian :
> 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 abou
2009/2/3 Brian :
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
> 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 con
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
>> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
>> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projec
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
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
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projec
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller :
> Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
> looks like, I want to briefly recap:
>
> * Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
> dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
> * I'm developing a simpl
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller :
> Even on
> the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
> for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
> are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
> apparently most people, that other people's web
Erik Moeller wrote:
> A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
> never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
> has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
> "reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to w
Erik Moeller wrote:
> A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
> never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
> has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
> "reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to w
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a
80 matches
Mail list logo
