Mensaje citado por foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Michael Bimmler)
> 2. Re: Re-licensing (George Herbert)
> 3. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Thomas Dalton)
> 4. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Erik Moeller)
> 5. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Ziko van Dijk)
> 6. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Delphine M?nard)
> 7. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Thomas Dalton)
> 8. Re: Re-licensing (Thomas Dalton)
> 9. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Brian)
> 10. Re: Wikia leasing office space to WMF (Delphine M?nard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:11:20 +0100
> From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <353e9f360901231411k3f1bac0av7484a37e1fd98df(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
> >Quit calling us
> > trolls, crackpots and kooks and simply address the matters in a factual way.
>
>
> Here's a suggestion for everyone: Stop the allusions to conspiracies
> ("tax-deductible money shifted to for-profit companies") *and* stop
> the name-calling.
>
> M.
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimmler(a)gmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:13:05 -0800
> From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <38a7bf7c0901231413v14639b08g77fa1a696c9781ae(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> > > concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> > > point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
> > > "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a
> > > member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't
> > > make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible
> > > to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word
> > > "moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only
> > > casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some
> > > study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon
> > > Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis
> > > than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more
> > > seriously.
> >
> > Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from
> > nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based
> > on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether
> > they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
> >
>
> Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
> saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
> distinct from copyright owners etc.
>
> The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a "term of the
> art" in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those
> rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent.
>
> This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it,
> is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
>
>
> There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as counsel,
> that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf. Godwin's
> Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago than I
> care to remember at the moment...). This is going over rather badly with
> some people's sense of moral indignation over licensing and copyright
> issues.
> HI, I AM NEW IN ALL THIS THING, PLEASE I NEED ALL OF YOU HELP ME.I AM CUBAN, AND MY
ENGLISH, IS NOT VERY GOOD,SO PLEASE SEND ME THE MESSAGES IN SPANISH, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND
YOU.
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:13:23 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0901231413q4d5d26e2y524066da6453ce2c(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/1/23 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>:
> > 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
> >>. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
> >
> > Of course. It's a normal transaction and any noise about it is likely
> > going to be ephemeral. We will continue to calmly and sensibly explain
> > it to reasonable people, and that's all there is to it.
>
> Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
> did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
> Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
> that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:20:10 -0800
> From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b80736c80901231420j23f86c88kaf585cae6c9c7b7(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
> > Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
> > did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
> > Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
> > that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
>
> I already named some of them - greater proximity, shared kitchen use,
> shared speakerphone use, established Internet connectivity. The other
> space we were looking at also had noise issues: open concept with two
> other tenants, and some noise every day at 6PM due to music lessons in
> the same building.
> --
> Erik M?ller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:46:23 +0100
> From: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <dcb629f40901231446w31e5e214i9d10410a121a8fbe(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > The natural state of these discussions is that there are always people
> > pissing in the wind. That spoils things somewhat.
> >
>
> Hear hear, true words in a typical Dutch wording. :-)
> I am amazed about the transparency and openess the staff members are giving
> here, and I am looking forward to the results of these splendid work
> conditions.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> "Wer durch des Argwohns Brille schaut,
> sieht Raupen selbst im Sauerkraut."
> Wilhelm Busch
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:13:44 +0100
> From: Delphine M?nard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <453b6e50901231513r161f7f35i895af92d2efd5755(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:53, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
> > I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of
> > "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit
> > branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at
> > nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
>
> I never thought I would say what comes next.
> As much as I have been a fierce defender of a clear cut between Wikia
> and Wikimedia, I must admit that I find this solution to be one of the
> best things that has happened to the usability project.
>
> About space: been there, and yes, Wikia's headquarters are a street
> away, so really easy to plan meetings and make sure things happen in
> coordinated fashion between the Wikimedia office and the Usability
> project.
>
> About working near Wikia: Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
> probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a
> way that makes sense for the users. They already have a pretty big
> developper team, and having them at hand will definitely broaden the
> usability project vision on what a wiki can/should do to be more user
> friendly.
>
> Who more than a commercial user of Mediawiki has an interest in its
> evolution _for the best_ of users?
>
> I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Where? Seriously? Wikia is
> renting walls, tables and chairs to the Wikimedia Foundation, that's
> all. And on top of that, they bring to the coffee machine talks tons
> of ideas and experience in the daily use of the software.
>
> And frankly, without this thread, everyone would have forgotten the
> move two days from now and seen nothing in it. Gee, it's time to grow
> up and stop seeing the cabal everywhere.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
> Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:16:45 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0901231516h761da0efu645e146f1f5145bb(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/1/23 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>:
> > 2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
> >> Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
> >> did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
> >> Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
> >> that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
> >
> > I already named some of them - greater proximity, shared kitchen use,
> > shared speakerphone use, established Internet connectivity. The other
> > space we were looking at also had noise issues: open concept with two
> > other tenants, and some noise every day at 6PM due to music lessons in
> > the same building.
>
> I was looking for something a little more quantitative. I know it is
> difficult to quantify these things, which is why, in my experience,
> charities usually err on the side of caution. In fact, the model
> governing documents for the UK Charities Commission explicitly forbids
> any such dealings with companies that share directors with the charity
> (I'm not sure the law requires such strict rules, but they are
> certainly recommended).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:18:57 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0901231518qc4a97ddj500252ba76a65bf7(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/1/23 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>:
> > This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it,
> > is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
>
> It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:35:20 -0700
> From: Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <9839a05c0901231535o5b09fda3j977c5f60e12fab68(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable.
> Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word
> 'cabal'.
>
> I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia
> relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense,
> except the $$$ kind.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Delphine M?nard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:53, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
> > > I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked
> > of
> > > "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit
> > > branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest
> > at
> > > nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
> >
> > I never thought I would say what comes next.
> > As much as I have been a fierce defender of a clear cut between Wikia
> > and Wikimedia, I must admit that I find this solution to be one of the
> > best things that has happened to the usability project.
> >
> > About space: been there, and yes, Wikia's headquarters are a street
> > away, so really easy to plan meetings and make sure things happen in
> > coordinated fashion between the Wikimedia office and the Usability
> > project.
> >
> > About working near Wikia: Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the
> > biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion,
> > probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a
> > way that makes sense for the users. They already have a pretty big
> > developper team, and having them at hand will definitely broaden the
> > usability project vision on what a wiki can/should do to be more user
> > friendly.
> >
> > Who more than a commercial user of Mediawiki has an interest in its
> > evolution _for the best_ of users?
> >
> > I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Where? Seriously? Wikia is
> > renting walls, tables and chairs to the Wikimedia Foundation, that's
> > all. And on top of that, they bring to the coffee machine talks tons
> > of ideas and experience in the daily use of the software.
> >
> > And frankly, without this thread, everyone would have forgotten the
> > move two days from now and seen nothing in it. Gee, it's time to grow
> > up and stop seeing the cabal everywhere.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Delphine
> > --
> > ~notafish
> >
> > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> > lost.
> > Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:08:36 +0100
> From: Delphine M?nard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <453b6e50901231608x58666cd0m8fb1bdab8462b77a(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
> > This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable.
> > Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word
> > 'cabal'.
>
> :D
>
> To be fair, I didn't so mean the word cabal for your intervention as
> for other interventions in this thread, but yours was the shortest to
> answer to :P
>
> > I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia
> > relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense,
> > except the $$$ kind.
>
> Yes, as I pointed out, I am the first to have been concerned and I
> will be again when there is reason to be. I firmly believe this
> renting of offices isn't a reason.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
> Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 58, Issue 130
> *********************************************
>
------------------------------
Infomed - Red de Salud de Cuba
http://www.sld.cu/
---------------------------------------
Red Telematica de Salud - Cuba
CNICM - Infomed
George Herbert writes:
> There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as
> counsel,
> that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf.
> Godwin's
> Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago
> than I
> care to remember at the moment...). This is going over rather badly
> with
> some people's sense of moral indignation over licensing and copyright
> issues.
I confess it is a vice, although better for my liver than alcohol or
cocaine.
--Mike
Michael Bimmler writes:
> Please Stop It.
Sure, Michael.
I confess it sometimes amuses me to argue with trolls, but I have no
interest in continuing to argue publicly when it ceases to amuse
anyone else but me.
My apologies. I'll try to keep things more in hand in the future.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike.
> Your last
> paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Thanks. But surely you don't expect me to tutor you on "moral rights"
jurisprudence when the materials you need are widely available
elsewhere.
> In any case, how do you propose that we can continue in a way that
> doesn't
> confuse you with sentences like "moral rights are a type of moral
> rights"?
I don't feel confused -- it seems to me quite clear where you've gone
wrong.
>>> There is a fundamental difference between a right
>>> granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law.
>>
>> Is this difference based on anything in the physical world?
>>
> Sure, it's based on whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes the
> right.
Oh, you're using "fundamental" in a way I wasn't expecting. I thought
you meant to be understood as saying that the "pre-existing right" had
an independent existence, outside of jurisprudence.
>> It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western
>> courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because
>> it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no
>> evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.
>>
>
> In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief?
It's invisible, unanalyzable, and an article of faith among believers.
>> Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between
>> natural law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the
>> former, but
>> there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright.
>
> You could have saved us a lot of time by saying that instead of
> pretending
> you didn't know what I was talking about.
I actually didn't know what you were talking about, since you use
language so imprecisely.
>> If what
>> you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that "moral
>> rights" obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to
>> things like property ownership and personal liberty.
>
> That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery
> are
> morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
I happen to agree that they are morally wrong, but not as a function
of natural-rights jurisprudence. I don't, however, believe abridgement
of rights in copyright is morally wrong (although of course I don't
approve of it). There's a distinction between malum prohibitum and
malum in se.
>> I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
>> anyone, but I promise I have it!
>>
>
> Why would you call it *my* house, then?
Convention.
> In any case, moral rights are recognized by many people, just not
> indisputably under Florida law.
Florida law? I thought we were talking about copyright.
> I see, so you *were* being intentionally obtuse. To try to teach me
> a lesson. I have to admit I'm glad that's what it was. To have to
> conclude
> that you were a complete dolt would have been much more shocking
> than the
> conclusion that you're a troll.
>
> And I did learn a lesson. I learned about your ignorance of right and
> wrong, and got a glimpse of the nihilism it stems from.
You seem confused here. Sometimes you want to attribute ignorance to
me, and sometimes you think I'm intentionally pretending to be
ignorant in order to teach you a lesson. I don't think you can
consistently hold both views with regard to the same subject matter.
Next time you should reflect a little and review your posting before
you hit the Send button.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
>> anyone, but I promise I have it!
>
> Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
> something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised
> by anyone.
So you recognize my right to your house? Cool! Where is it? When can
I get the keys?
> Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from
> nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based
> on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether
> they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
Oh, so you're creating a special Thomas Daltonian definition of the
word "moral rights." Cool!
>> Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?
>
> Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know
> fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality.
So you're under the impression that "term of art" is "fancy lawyer
speak"?
>> By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of
>> the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have
>> come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out
>> philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.
>
> Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll
> actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am
> well trained in logic and reasoned argument.
This underscores your problem, perhaps. Many mathematicians are under
the impression that reasoning from first principles is a substitute
for actually doing the necessary reading and learning. The notion that
one can argue without knowledge of the relevant facts is one that is
common, all by no means universal, among my friends who are
mathematicians.
> While I may
> not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and
> see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do.
I can understand why arguments based on reading you have not done and
facts you do not have wouldn't make sense to you. I'll make allowances.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Well, first off, I wasn't referring to free licenses, I was
> referring to
> rights.
This is a telling admission. I respect anyone's desire to have rights
over the copyrighted material he or she generates. That's a function
of traditional copyright law and it informs the traditional regime of
"all rights reserved". But if you don't give primacy to the mission
of spreading free knowledge to the world -- the function of free
licenses! -- including your edits of other people's contributions,
perhaps you are involved in the wrong project?
> 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 consistent with the GFDL or not?
Obviously, the History page reachable from a Wikipedia article could
be interpreted as not being a "section" or a "named subunit."
Historically, the community has generally interpreted this attribution
requirement of the GFDL as allowing for a link to a History page. In
this respect, there is no essential difference between GFDL and CC-BY-
SA 3.x.
If there is no essential difference, then your concern about getting
credit is a wash, regardless of whether the license on Wikipedia is
updated.
This doesn't mean your concern is any less valid or invalid -- it just
means that there's nothing inherent in the question of updating the
license that should trigger it.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
>> Anthony writes:
>>> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
>>> right
>>> to attribution.
>>
>> Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
>>
>
> Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
Please understand that I am entirely familiar with the notions of
"moral rights" and "natural rights." (I suspect I am more familiar
with this notions than you are.)
> Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
> have it.
I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
anyone, but I promise I have it!
> Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse. How
> in the
> world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that?
> Seriously, that's appalling.
I suppose it is appalling to anyone who cherishes naive notions about
the meaning of a specialized term like "moral rights" that other
people may choose not to employ them naively. To be frank, those of us
who actually have to work with such terms don't have the luxury of
using them sloppily and naively.
--Mike
By repeating false things they will be not more true.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
Attribution in the GNU FDL is done by copyright notices or the section
called History.
"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the License in the document and put the following copyright and
license notices just after the title page:
Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
This means: Follwowing this way of attribution the name of the autor
can never dissapear.
Verbatim copying: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any
medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this
License, the COPYRIGHT NOTICES, and the license notice saying this
License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies" (my
empasis).
Modification: "D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document."
Important is the following clause:
"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and
add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there
is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating
the title, year, AUTHORS, and publisher of the Document as given on
its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as
stated in the previous sentence." (my emphasis)
It is possible to ignore this? I do not think so. There is a strong
obligation that every GFDL document which is modified must have a
section entitled History. The only thing in the Wikipedia which can be
regarded as a section history is the version history which is also the
way in which authors are given credit.
One entry with the name/IP of the contributor and the date in the
version history has two functions: 1. it is a substitution of the
copyright noctice, 2. it is part of the section history.
A lot of people in the German Wikipedia believe that the only way to
fulfill the GFDL strictly is to reproduce the whole version history
resp. the names of all contributors.
"Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band" was a cooperation between
Bertelsmann and the German chapter. It has a long list of ALL
contributors see e.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4C&pg=PT979
The Directmedia Offline Wikipedia CDs/DVDs have reproductions of the
version histories.
I would like to say one thing very clear:
IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT A THIRD PARTY RIGHT TO CHOOSE
THE WAY OF ATTRIBUTION IN THE CC-BY-SA LICENSE.
The attribution in the GFDL is described by the license. WMF or FSF
has NO RIGHT to choose a specific interpretation.
WMF has NO RIGHT to relicense the old content according to the
proposed "Copyright Policy" containing the CC-BY-SA attribution
"expectations".
Each user has to agree EXPLICITELY to the "Copyright Policy" as part
of the contract between the WMF and him. May be it is legal to make
this agreement valid for older contributions of the same user. But the
policy cannot bind users no more active.
Third party CC-BY-SA text content cannot be imported if there is'nt an
EXPLICITE statement that the creator allows the attribution policy.
It is possible to substitude the normal attribution by giving instead
an internet adress BUT ONLY THE CREATOR CAN CHOOSE THIS POSSIBILITY.
If you will import CC-BY-SA content you have to obey the author's way
of attribution. If there is no specification the name has to be
mentioned. For this contribution the attribution policy (incl. link to
a list of authors if more than five) ISN'T VALID!
Klaus Graf
Anthony writes:
> A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
definition.
> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
> right
> to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
> Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a
> film
> director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the
> first
> scene of the picture".
Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a
"credit card" (I assume you mean "credit"). They may negotiate for
such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence
of a contract.
>> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
>
> To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but
> legal
> rights can't be understood without employing common sense.
They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either.
--Mike