On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're
even
arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles where I am the last author or for historical revisions.
Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every modified version is first distributed by someone other than the foundation.
What is that, the "two wrongs make a right" argument? If I distribute illegal bootlegs of Star Wars and then you redistribute them, does that get you off the hook?
No, they have a DMCA defense, but not once they receive a DMCA takedown notice.
That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that
rather than a modified version.
It's *already* a modified version.
It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in a section name and one reference to the section.
There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause.
Scroll up just a few messages and you see that Erik suggesting they will: "The attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA are reasonably flexible, and we can specify in the terms of use that e.g. with more than five authors, attribution happens through a link to the History page."
And then, topping it off, there are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a URL as "attribution". And Creative Commons is working closely with these people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance CC-BY-SA 4.0 will.
I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as acceptable attribution.
They pay attention to moral rights in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. But CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported lets you relicense the work under any of the country-specific licenses.
I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC image on a postcard. GFDL not so much.
Images can (and are) already licensed under the CC licenses.