Here is a WikiBlame tool that serves as a demo:
http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
I've come up with an algorithm to speed up the search when you don't know
the article title (a case this doesn't handle) but you can't get around
needing a monster index.
The easiest way to do this is to
One thing that has not been brought forward yet in this discussion,
and which I think is important, is that 'author' does not equate
'editor'. It seems many here do go from that assumption in trying to
get the authors of an article. Suppose, an article has the following
edit history:
A starts the
But here's the virtue of contributing to Wikipedia in the first place:
anyone anywhere who wants to see who did what, will go to the actual
Wikipedia and will find your credited contributions, regardless of the
details in subsequent reproductions--as long as they know it's from
Wikipedia.
On Tue,
2009/2/2 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
Which is fine if you're reprinting the whole article, but what if
you're just reprinting the lede, or some other section of an article?
Should a reuser still be required to reprint 2 pages of credits for a
paragraph of article? That seems onerous.
2009/2/1 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this.
It can but can only do this when everyone agrees. Since wikipedia
currently has 282,180,603 edits by people who have not agreed such a
change is imposible.
I
have only
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this.
It can but can only do this when everyone agrees. Since wikipedia currently
has 282,180,603 edits by people who have not agreed such a change is
imposible.
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
False. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the [edits of
the] minority who choose to disrupt the community will be quickly and
efficiently purged from it (albeit wasting resources in the process that
could have been better utilised
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote: As for how sharing
your name is better for everyone, I think it's fairly clear that a work
of
non-fiction is better if you know who wrote it, and further I think it's
also clear that when someone
Robert Rohde wrote:
So where do things stand?
By my rough count, the relicensing discussion has generated over 300
emails in the last month alone. At least within the limited confines
of people who read this list, I suspect that everyone who has wanted
to offer an opinion has done so.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few articles require a page's worth of credit. Remember even the
German has an average of 23.65 edits per page and the midpoint is
likely much lower.
True. Although as a caveat remember that people aren't going to be
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Nothing's impossible - where there's a will (and clearly there is[1])
there's a way. Mozilla managed to relicense to GPL years ago[2] (they
had an FAQ too[3])
We have sought and obtained permission to relicense from almost
everyone who contributed code to
But since most of the contributors to Wikipedia are anonymous, this is
one thing we do not and will never know, regardless of licensing. so
to the extent Wikipedia has any authority it's precisely from the fact
of community editing on a non-personal basis.
Yes, within Wikipedia it's valuable to
On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if work
they do is useful?
___
foundation-l
Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu
On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
narcissism.
You say
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wisely remarked:
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if
work
they do is useful?
Gerard Meijssen top-posted:
Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Hoi,
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
Thanks.
GerardM
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wisely remarked:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
users of his material unwittingly respect a copyright that
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
Thanks.
People may be contributing for narcissistic reasons, but
nobody has suggested any restrictions be imposed
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
___
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
You should probably clarify what it is you're calling narcissism. For
that matter, you should probably clarify what you mean by narcissism in
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
could be proud of your work but not at least prefer your name to be on it.
Again, right at the top, I apologize for replying to a week old
posting, and one I replied to at the time, besides... but
perhaps my motives will be clear.
Anthony wrote:
Now, personally, the way I read reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilitzing, I think it means what is reasonably
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
users of his material
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing that you produced something make
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Exactly. There is nothing 'customary' about massively collaborative
development of works.
Just about every film of any significance. TV series. Computer games.
Heh just about every bit of major software. Maps of large areas can
rack up very large numbers
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
narcissism.
In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
___
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a good idea to
remove attribution.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that we remove attribution
altogether, just that we attribute Wikipedia as a
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not
David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
It is a bit ego-centric to only care about how one self only
views ones work as mattering. It is wise and pragmatic
to acknowledge that not every individual thinks as one
thinks themselves. That
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath to
Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
I have made some studies,
Michael Snow wrote:
Requirements like that (the US used to
require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Requirements like that (the US used to
require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was
Delirium wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral
First, right up top (not top posting; but noting something intentionally
at the top
of this posting), let me acknowledge that responding to one of ones own
postings is considered bad form. But in my defense I will note that I am
genuinely
not doing so in order to prolong a thread well past its
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
I have made some studies, and it appears this last
sentence is in
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
highly medium specific.
[snip]
However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct
(never mind if it has been
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
highly medium specific.
[snip]
However, if what you say happens to in fact be
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
David Gerard wrote:
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound
gorilla in the GFDL users pool.
When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will
never again regain that status, and a combative
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
So at the very minimum, it would well serve us to know what the
established standards are within CC-BY-SA, in particular focusing
on the BY part.
As others have pointed out on
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
list.
If you take out
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate
Also, I doubt that anything remains of those articles to dive credit for.
2009/1/24 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
legally
right, since once edit histories for anything
2009/1/24 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
2009/1/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Mike took us off on a tangent when he insisted that the concept of moral
rights was a purely legal construction, but up until then I thought things
were going well.
Or you went off on a tangent when you started talking about moral
rights in a more general
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Mike took us off on a tangent when he insisted that the concept of moral
rights was a purely legal construction, but up until then I thought
things
were going well.
Or you
Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral rights in your
I can prove what I wrote :)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before
On Thursday 22 January 2009 01:11:15 Erik Moeller wrote:
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
their context in Wikipedia.
Apropos of which, a thought. We have spilled a good bit of ink over
whether or not it is appropriate for the reuser to attribute
Wikipedia users either alone or
2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650 bytes
(or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
encyclopedic format, the article would take some more than ten pages, and the
list of authors would
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650
bytes
(or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
encyclopedic format,
2009/1/23 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
I wonder - would it be possible to get some kind of script set up to
take, say, a thousand of our most popular articles and tell us what
the cite all named authors who make nontrivial contributions result
would be like? This might be a useful bit
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650
bytes
(or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
encyclopedic format, the article would take some more than ten pages, and
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/23 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/1/23 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
I wonder - would it be possible to get some kind of script set up to
take, say, a thousand of our most popular
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is useful to note that even in countries where
moral rights are inalienable, there is a requirement of
originality and creative effort.
snip
It is not strictly true that all countries require
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is useful to note that even in countries where
moral rights are inalienable, there is a requirement of
originality and
Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in the section
entitled
History, and it clearly states that a section Entitled XYZ means
a named
subunit of the Document...
So is current
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
their context in Wikipedia.
Apropos of which, a thought. We have spilled a good bit of ink over
whether or not it is appropriate for the reuser to attribute
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 19:32:15 Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have
to
say that I do not think that
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say the key to this whole relicensing debate is that the positions
shouldn't be balanced. It is my firm conviction that you ought not
violate some individuals' rights for the good of some other (larger) group
of
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think you and I both know that your whole business of saying there
are over 100 versions of CC-BY-SA was an attempt to try to create
ambiguity and anxiety when there isn't really any.
No, I could have accomplished
Anthony writes:
The credit should be part of the
work itself, not external to the work.
This is a very odd notion, and I find nothing in the language of any
free license that supports it. Freely licensed photos, for example,
don't have to have the attribution as part of the photo.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
As Thomas said, it requires Internet access, which might not be available.
I think it's a bit more than that, though. The credit should be part of the
work itself, not external to the work. When you're talking about a website,
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
As Thomas said, it requires Internet access, which might not be available.
I think it's a bit more than that, though. The credit should be part of the
work itself, not
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
The credit should be part of the work itself, not external to the work.
This is a very odd notion, and I find nothing in the language of any
free license that supports it.
Well, first off, I
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
We can develop tools that would identify principal authors with sufficient
accuracy; and this list of authors is likely to be short enough to be
practically included in full.
I disagree with this assertion regarding
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
As Thomas said, it requires Internet access, which might not be
available.
I think it's a bit more than that, though. The credit should be part
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
Please consider this, especially in light of recent research that shows that
most Wikipedia contributors contribute from egoistic reasons ;)
Wikipedia is a community and those who contribute to it for egotistic rather
than
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
I might add that the argument that you ought not violate some individuals'
rights for the good of some other (larger) group of individuals is weak in
this context, and that exactly the same can be (and has been) said in
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I understand that viewpoint and think it is reasonable. How about adding a
checkbox to preferences, that says allow attribution by URL?
Insofar as this satisfies my personal preference on the matter, I say
that this is fine.
2009/1/22 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
What value do they really think they will get from a 2pt credit
with 5,000 other authors?
Don't underestimate the enjoyment of looking through the page of
credits at the back of a printed book and finding your name! People
like to be acknowledged, even if
There is an analogous project. The thousands of contributors of
quotations exemplifying use to the Oxford English Dictionary have
their names listed, though not with the items they sent. the
principal ones are listed separately, but even those who sent in a
single quotation are in a list. I know
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they
recognize that there is an additional good
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example,
everyone
who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are
given,
but not the other
Milos Rancic wrote:
* If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
solution to allow pointing from less advanced medium to more advanced
medium.
Independent of the relicensing debate, I don't understand this
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
long, so they are not
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
* If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
solution to allow pointing from less
Now read that article outloud and record it. Reasonable to the medium
or means in this case however lets people follow the common practice
of putting the credit on the record sleeve /CD jewel case.
Reasonable doesn't have to mean common practice. How about reading
out the names at the end?
Because radio broadcasts have far shorter credit lists. Yeah to an
extent you can do it with CDs but for 45s that is right out. However
the license itself specifies Reasonable to the medium or means so
this does not present a problem.
Surely you couldn't fit a read out version of [[France]]
I understand Milos' concern, actually, and this is the most reasonable
objection to a URL link for attribution purposes that has been raised so
far. It is true that the Internet is by its nature impermanent, evolving
both in content and in structure. It's by no means guaranteed that if we
include
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in the section
entitled
History, and it clearly states that a section Entitled XYZ means
a named
subunit of the Document...
So is current Wikipedia practice
Anthony writes:
On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
part of
the Document.
Even if it's on a different server?
For online copies, as I've said before, I don't see much problem
with this.
As I've said before, it's hard to draw the line as to what is part
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're trying to say, then. It
sounded like you were talking about having one document (web, print,
whatever medium) point to another, something that might be done for
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
part of
the Document.
Even if it's on a different server?
I don't see why not. If you're talking about a different server and
2009/1/21 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your
approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c)
You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
