On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
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.