This attribution would be consistent with what
I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:
Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code
en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the redirect page would need to be fixed..)
With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no
matter when it existed in any language version:
Wikipedia
For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned
images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are
lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and
you can find the author.
I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says
something reasonable for a change?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
So
effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
problem).
Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only.
A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be
attributed to them in a flexible manner.
I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on
every bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would
consider flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is
not explicitly listed, fair attribution to them.
I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against
a hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a
Uniform Resource Locator anyway? "It specifies where an identified
resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia)
We can do that without including all the http:// bits.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian
<Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit
of the GFDL is?
Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.
So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
problem).
I've already explained why flexible
attribution is equivalent to full
attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to
make
it easier.
Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
"the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?
But back to your spirit argument. Why would a
CC-Wiki that is more
practical
about attribution be against the spirit of the
GFDL?
Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the
situation.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l