Jimbo wrote:
Maybe! But there are advantages for all of us to contribute our copyrights to the foundation.
Can we make copyright assignment compulsory for anonymous contributions to Wikibooks then? This is something I have often seen other Wikis do (Anon contribs are a special case because it is much more difficult to track them down in order to ask them about copyright changes). Maybe this in combination with requiring valid email to activate user accounts will make the copyright situation more bearable for Wikibooks.
Both of these ideas might also be a good for Wikipedia too (for new accounts and edits made by Anons after a certain date) - but I would like to see if it works on Wikibooks first.
That way we at least have some way to contact users in case of a copyright change (simply knowing a previous email address - even if no longer valid - should help a great deal in tracking someone down in order to ask them about relicensing).
Aside: A prominent link to a privacy policy should be incorporated into the Special:userlogin page in order to assuage people's fears over giving out their email address - but that is needed anyway.
It's too late now, of course, but all of our licensing /relicensing questions would be a lot easier to deal with if the foundation owned all the copyrights.
<beating a dead horse> Again, I would be very wary of that; there is would be no guarantee against the Foundation selling its soul (copyrights) to the Devil (*cough* Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation *cough*) for a large grant (by-laws and Foundation constitutions can change). By making it fairly difficult, but not impossible, to change copyright, we add another layer of protection and filter against such a thing happening. Power to the people. </beating a dead horse>
The FSF requires an assignment of copyrights to them for any official FSF projects. This policy would not work for us -- it's too late, and would interfere with the wiki model. But if people voluntarily do it, I think it's a good idea.
We should make it easy for logged-in users to assign copyright if they so choose - it is their text and their right (a push button interface to flag user accounts, and thus user edits, would be nice). But paranoid people like me will leave copyright assignment clauses in our Wills (or if we are rich, then clear instructions to our estates on how those copyrights can be used).
But I plan on being very contactable until then, so if a relicensing of my work needs to occur, then just ask.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:02:31AM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Can we make copyright assignment compulsory for anonymous contributions to Wikibooks then?
It's legally impossible. Copyright assignment requires a real legal contract, and you can't make those with anonymous people, no way.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Can we make copyright assignment compulsory for anonymous contributions to Wikibooks then?
It's legally impossible. Copyright assignment requires a real legal contract, and you can't make those with anonymous people, no way.
We want people to sign over all rights of /use/ to us, so that we can do whatever we want with it. Whether we actually own the copyright is irrelevant.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Can we make copyright assignment compulsory for
anonymous contributions to
Wikibooks then?
It's legally impossible. Copyright assignment
requires a real legal
contract, and you can't make those with anonymous
people, no way.
We want people to sign over all rights of /use/ to us, so that we can do whatever we want with it. Whether we actually own the copyright is irrelevant.
If we just do that, we'd need some way to know their name in order to cite it, which is impossible. Why not have it all just be the same as Wikipedia is? That seems to be working. I don't like ownership of knowledge, and I'd rather that everything contributed to wikibooks, anonymous or otherwise, is considered authored by wikibooks, just like Wikipedia. Additionally, some textbooks (like my Algebra I textbook, for one) are partially based on Wikipedia content, so it would be nearly impossible to say that all of the non-anonymous contributers in any way own the content; that would just be too broad. -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
If we just do that, we'd need some way to know their name in order to cite it, which is impossible. Why not have it all just be the same as Wikipedia is? That seems to be working. I don't like ownership of knowledge, and I'd rather that everything contributed to wikibooks, anonymous or otherwise, is considered authored by wikibooks, just like Wikipedia. Additionally, some textbooks (like my Algebra I textbook, for one) are partially based on Wikipedia content, so it would be nearly impossible to say that all of the non-anonymous contributers in any way own the content; that would just be too broad.
At first, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't change things. And then you describe the way that you'd like things to work.
Unfortunately, if I've understood you correctly, then these two things that you're saying are contradictory. That's absolutely /not/ how Wikipedia works now. This /is/ basically the suggestion for the change.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
If we just do that, we'd need some way to know
their
name in order to cite it, which is impossible. Why
not
have it all just be the same as Wikipedia is? That seems to be working. I don't like ownership of knowledge, and I'd rather that everything
contributed
to wikibooks, anonymous or otherwise, is considered authored by wikibooks, just like Wikipedia. Additionally, some textbooks (like my Algebra I textbook, for one) are partially based on Wikipedia content, so it would be nearly impossible to say
that
all of the non-anonymous contributers in any way
own
the content; that would just be too broad.
At first, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't change things. And then you describe the way that you'd like things to work.
Unfortunately, if I've understood you correctly, then these two things that you're saying are contradictory. That's absolutely /not/ how Wikipedia works now. This /is/ basically the suggestion for the change.
-- Toby
I guess I have a bad view of how things work. I was under the impression that everything contributed to Wikipedia was just Wikipedia's, not the author's. That's what I was trying to say. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I guess I have a bad view of how things work. I was under the impression that everything contributed to Wikipedia was just Wikipedia's, not the author's. That's what I was trying to say.
That's how peple are supposed to think about the /articles/. That is, I don't own this article just because I wrote, so you can change it if you like (and I can change it further). But each individual revision is still copyright by its author.
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org