> Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
> rather than
> counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
> There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.
They are sufficiently interchangeable or interoperable, however, that
they can be treated as one license for our purposes.
> (I believe there are
> over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)
I'm sure if *you* counted them there would be "over 100" at least.
> As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "You must
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in
> relation to the
> Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that
> anyone can
> mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.
As Erik has explained, this is part of the moral-rights language
necessary to the license such that it can be applied in moral-rights-
Perhaps you could write us a little essay on how you well you think
GFDL addresses the moral-rights question. I look forward to your
sharing your expertise, Counselor.
>> It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
>> than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
> What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be
> judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?
That argument requires that you analyze GFDL on every dimension that
you analyze CC-BY-SA 3.0 on. I look forward to your analysis,
I've been assembling my notes from last week's board meeting to pass
along. The first set of items I have to report is business from the
chapters committee. All of these resolutions have been posted on the
We approved two new chapters, and there's something special about each
of the two. Wikimedia New York City is special because it's the first
one recognized under the new sub-national chapter guidelines. And
Wikimedia UK is special because it's the second version of that chapter.
For the sake of formality - and nobody does formality better than the
British, which has been part of the difficulty - we revoked the
recognition of the first one, which is dissolved or in the process of
dissolving. Anyway, welcome to both of the new chapters!
Also, two resolutions relating to the chapters committee's membership
and procedures were approved. One recognizes the current members and the
other allows the committee to determine its own membership in the
future. This allows them to keep their work going without waiting for
the board to pass a resolution (the board reserves the ability to
appoint and remove members and will still be informed of changes).
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
>> 
> There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the
total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY-
SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x.
> In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all
> previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license
> considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and
> Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used. I
> would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if
> BY-SA is adopted as the main content license.
See also rms's excellent discussion of the issue at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter/
It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
I've been following with great interest the endeavour to relicense Wikipedia
for some time, though this is my first meaningful contribution to it.
Attribution is an important and sensitive issue but I think the discussions
so far are missing a great opportunity to promote Wikipedia itself while
further simplifying (and thus fostering) re-use. Focus so far has been on
arduous processes for identifying authors and linking to revision histories
which runs the risk of continuing to stifle adoption of content even after
It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
The attribution itself would then be something like "Wikipedia 'Widgets'
article" which is enough in itself for a user to be able to find the article
and associated revision history (concise attributions are critical
especially for print work, on t-shirts, etc.).
My primary concern is that it can be essentially impossible to reliably
identify key contributers, and that doing so in an environment of stigmergic
collaboration can be very misleading as to the value of each contribution
(even the most minor of edits play a critical role in the building of
trust). It is also a potential source of significant contention, both
internally between editors and externally with editors individually seeking
attribution from content consumers.
Take for example the cloud
computing<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing>article which I
[re]wrote last year, the vast majority of which is to this
day still my work. In this case it is clear from the
I am the primary/original author but had I have confined my updates to
a single edit there would be no way to reliably identify me, short of
tracking the owner of each and every character (and even this is far from
perfect). In any case my contribution was intended to further the objects of
Wikipedia and if I need to derive recognition for my work then I will
reference it directly myself.
Please consider adopting as low a minimum acceptable standard for
attributions as possible so as to derive the full benefit from this exciting
transition by lowering the barriers to participation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In accordance with the recent board decision to increase the number of
ombudsmen from 3 to 5, we have appointed the following users as
[[User:Schiste]] from frwiki
[[User:PatríciaR]] from commonswiki
[[User:Tinz]] from dewiki
[[User:Sam Korn]] from enwiki
[[User:Shizhao]] from zhwiki
Please join me in thanking Rebecca, Mackensen, and Hei ber for their
willingness to take on this commitment over the course of the last year.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bei der dem Durchschauen der Stward-Liste ist mir aufgefallen, dass kein
Steward sich besonders in einen der Wikiversity(ich habe mir speziell de.WV
und en.WV angeschaut) aktiv ist.
Leider können einige der Mitarbeiter nicht kandidieren, da viel einen
Zeitmangel besitzen oder andere(wie ich) nicht an den Voraussetzungen vorbei
kommen(ich bin z.B. keine 18 Jahre alt).
Nach meiner Meinung sollte etwas dagegen getan werden, weil ich finde, dass
von allen Projekten einige Stewards kommen sollten, damit man sich
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jan Luca(deutsche Wikiversity)
>> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area
>> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and
> Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
> The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
> Afaik, only one chapter has.
> When propositions are received, either we forward them to the
> and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we
> can not negociate.
After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and
as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's
characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the
chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to
the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding
wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every
single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German
chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize
chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter
agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a
result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were
disorganized or complete prior to the move.)
Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping
of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent
possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard
understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a
function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements
in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have
asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to
work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement
this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we
expect this collaboration to be fruitful.
On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of
"subnational chapters" rather than "subchapters."