> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:58:31 -0800
> From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <55AA3395-EC88-4EC2-8D36-EFDA1967A839(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> geni writes:
>
>>> (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier
>>> for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
>>
>> Nope. The "to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories
>> is acceptable if there are more than five authors." bit will mean that
>> it is imposable for wikipedia to take content from Citizendium without
>> Citizendium adopting some very strange TOS specifically for the
>> benefit of wikipedia which I would rather doubt it would do. Even that
>> would not make it possible to copy content on Citizendium to wikipedia
>> at the moment were the 5 names +URL proposal to be enacted.
>
> I don't regard the 5 names+URL implementation proposal to be written
> in stone. We might choose to modify it (by, e.g., increasing the
> number of names, or allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
> listed) based on feedback here and elsewhere. But the aspect of the
> license update has always been to maximize the extent to which
> Wikipedia can import and export CC-BY-SA-licensed content. Citizendium
> uses a CC-BY-SA 3.0 (unported) license already. Presumably Citizendium
> wants both to import and export CC-BY-SA content. Any implementation
> by us that would require us to ask Citizendium for some kind of
> exemption -- which I agree would be unlikely -- is out of the question.
May I repeat: It is the right of the author and only of the author to
choose the way the attribution is made according the CC-BY-SA license.
"You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a),
keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable
to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original
Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the
Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties
(e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution
("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of
service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or
parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not
refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;
and, consistent with Section 3(b) in the case of a Derivative Work, a
credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g.,
"French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay
based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by
this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner"
The original Author/Licensor has to designate an attribution party and
to specify an URI as attribution.
His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely. This means:
If Wikipedia wants to import "standard" CC-BY-SA content with the name
of the author as attribution scheme it is NOT possible to apply the 5
authors rule for this content. Author's name has to be mentioned even
if 1000 other contributors work on the Wikipedia article - not for
eternity but 70 years after his death.
In this case re-users cannot choose the link-to-a-name-list-rule.
If such imported authors have special conditions - why not give them
to all Wikipedia contributors?
Klaus Graf