geni wrote: I wholeheartedly agree with geni here. While I support Robert Rohde's general sentiment of "let's just get on with it", his description of the situation as it stands leaves much to be desired for. There absolutely has only been the one voice bemoaning the passing of gfdl from wikimedia, and that voice not even accepting RMS own words or trust of the replacement scheme. It beggars belief that someone would think that anyone would come to the conclusion that this equates to "some people on this list clearly do". There is just one "jeremiah" on this list. But I have to object also on the point that supposedly the other side has merely given some metaphysical "foundation view" on the issue. That is just simple bullcrap. The one loud voice here from the foundation *staff* (staff mind you, not the board of trustees) was espousing a very novel interpretation of the CC-BY-SA that would have quite spectacularly failed the "tentacles of evil" test of the Debian guidelines. Even still the wording seems to not quite get the point of share-alike, but frankly not in a fatal way, and can be easily adjusted later, since it is merely misleading the very naive, who don't quite understand the real liberties that the genuine license gives them. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

2009/3/18 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: For the record, our legal reasoning for the attribution terms under consideration is as follows (as reviewed by Mike). 1) Part 1: Can attribution-by-link be reconciled with the legal code of CC-BY-SA? Answer: Yes. The "attribution by link" option was explicitly made available to authors in CC-BY-SA 2.0 (note difference in section 4.c: http://tinyurl.com/cvdbe9 and related blog entry: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 ). Authors also have the option to not supply an author name for the purposes of attribution ("the Original Author if supplied"). The attribution requirements are also tempered by the caveat that they should be "reasonable to the medium or means", building in flexibility for situations where, for example, providing attribution to all authors directly isn't feasible or reasonable. Therefore terms of use which require authors to agree to be credited by link, and not by name, are consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. This entire reasoning has been explicitly confirmed by Creative Commons General Counsel Diane Peters. 2) Part 2: Can such an attribution model be reconciled with moral rights provisions in certain jurisdictions? Answer: Yes. Moral rights provisions protect an author's right to be named, but allow flexibility in how such attribution occurs (for example, there is a long history of case law with regard to pseudonymous attribution). As long as authors consent to terms of use requiring attribution by hyperlink, such attribution is consistent with moral rights. Such consent has already been given for existing edits (see below). 3) Part 3: Is such an attribution model consistent with the past practice under which authors have contributed to Wikipedia and other projects? Answer: Yes. This is evident through the current site-wide copyright terms, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . Even the earliest available version of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy which stated re-users obligations said that users' "obligations can be fulfilled by providing a conspicuous link back to the home of the article here at wikipedia.com." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&oldid=15…] Similar terms have been stated through the history of the policy, as well as other language versions. In addition to the site-wide terms of use, the consistency of this practice can also be inferred from the experience of a user contributing content to Wikipedia or another Wikimedia website. Such changes are not visibly credited to the contributor on the resultant page. Indeed, the only way in which contributors are credited in Wikipedia is through a history of changes. This history is a full view of every change ever made to a page, often spanning multiple pages, including irrelevant edits, and providing no obvious means to discern contributors who have made substantial edits. Authors do not receive attribution by name in any conventional fashion, such as by being listed below the article title or in the page footer. In the exploratory Wikimedia Foundation survey on attribution, some users even pointed out that if they ever expected to be credited for their work, they would have chosen a different username. Therefore, an argument that a contributor has a reasonable expectation to be attributed beyond the proposed terms is not supportable by past and current practice. That said, these terms have always been inconsistent with the rigorous requirements of the GFDL, and while the terms of use and real-world practice can be understood to establish the actual conditions of re-use, CC-BY-SA guarantees full consistency of the longstanding attribution model with the content license. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Дана Friday 20 March 2009 04:30:11 Erik Moeller написа: Erik, this is simply not true. The sentence in question reads [...] You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; 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 [...] So, the URI has to be given *in addition* to the name of the author, not *instead* of it. ...who apparently hasn't read her own license. This is also not completely true. It is true that Wikipedia mirrors often cited authors in this way; but a number of books that were printed from Wikipedia content have a list of all the authors. I would also argue that printing a link is not the same thing as providing it.

2009/3/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>: What interpretation are you referring to, and how would it fail the tentacles of evil test? -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:04:49 Erik Moeller написа: Of course, if an author doesn't supply a name, then an URL is all that remains. But most of our authors have not excercised this possibility: they do supply their names, or pseudonyms. It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is that their way of attribution is reasonable.

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Just because one method is reasonable does not mean that all others are unreasonable. --Michael Snow

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: * Copyleft is a specific form of copyright. * Even attribution-only licenses are, also, a specific form of copyright. * Just PD, which exists in some jurisdictions for non-state entities, is not linked inherently to attribution. I don't have anything against redefining copyleft out of the copyright scope, if it is possible. I am just pointing to the fact that any kind of present licenses is a form of copyright and that non-attribution doesn't exist in any form of copyright. Yes, it is useful and reasonable. Personally, l don't have problems with it. Wikipedia is a content author or not? If it is a provider, it may demand just non-exclusive and non-transitive terms, like Yahoo, Google or Facebook are demanding. Not mentioning important authors is not consistent to the legal philosophy of moral rights. I know that it isn't easy to define who are the important authors of one article... Again, personally, I don't have problems with it. However, I think that the present construction of the attribution issue is far from well defined and that it leaves WMF projects in extremely vulnerable position. Just a small group of malicious persons may make a real mess with attribution conditions. And probability for that is huge. If something is not legally valid, it may not pass as an argument at the court. I don't think that agreement "you don't need to mention my name as an author" is legally valid out of Anglo-Saxon legal systems. This means that any Wikipedia author may make hundreds of thousands of edits and after that demand that her or his name should be mentioned at all pages. Even he or she agreed previously with conditions of not mentioning his or her name. BTW, I would be really happy to see the success of this issue because it would make a huge precedent in copyright legislation. Actually, it would make copyright fairly useless: Who would willing to use copyrighted material when it is possible to use good PD-with-link materials?

Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:58:02 Erik Moeller написа: But the terms and conditions do not clarify that, anywhere. Still, a number of people edit under their real name or have a perfectly usual pseudonym (I might add, including you).

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Not necessarily in so many words. But for proponents of the "all-authors" approach to attribution, an inherent part of the subtext in such arguments is that other approaches, which do not go to the same length in listing authors, are inferior and therefore also unreasonable. I thought it would be worthwhile to get the implied argument out and address it. By comparison, Erik only said that people had over-attributed historically. He didn't say it was unreasonable of them to over-attribute, nor do I think that should be implied in what he said. Yet your response did seem to imply it, since it tried to rebut that position. --Michael Snow

2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Again you miss the point. Wikipedia has 293,896,584 edits that were not released under those TOS. -- geni

2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Well I suppose that confirms you haven't really been paying attention. I assume you are trying to claim that wikipedia:copyrights is some kind of TOS equiv. Now that argument is flawed on a number of grounds but I think I'll take the easy option. Where is the link of the following pages: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canale_artificiale http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanal http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hampshire_County,_West_Virginia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB_(%D0%B3%D0%B8%D… http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaal_(waterweg) Strangely there is no requirement that the history and the title page not be the same thing. Please provide the section you think allows for it. Questionable. The GFDL is quite happy to see the title page extend over several pages. However it cannot be modified without creating a history and that history is required to include "new authors" among other things. The exception being if you want to use them in the context of the GFDL which has a similar bunch of annoying requirements for it's history section. Then please don't waste bandwidth with it. False. Look up history merging sometime. Please state which section of the GFDL you are referring to here. I'm fed up with playing guessing games. -- geni

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: However, you're quite inconsistent on that point. As one example among many, you said earlier "Indeed, the only way in which contributors are credited in Wikipedia is through a history of changes." What is and isn't acceptable is defined through more than the license. Like polling? 1 out of 5 Wikipedians polled expressed that they expect a full list of authors to be listed in an offline copy. "Attribution by link" is acceptable to most Wikipedians, but not to all. Are you claiming that Wikipedians have supplied such a URL? What is the URL they have supplied? Must all reusers supply this URL, or is it optional for them to do so?

Дана Saturday 21 March 2009 01:52:06 Erik Moeller написа: Of course it is false. CC-BY-SA can be reconciled with attributing by URL only (or even with not attributing at all), however in our practice it isn't. I read them, and I know I still expected that in print my name would be there somewhere.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:42 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's one way to look at it. A more sane way would be that wikipedians have collaborated on a number of documents which they agree to release to third parties under the GFDL. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I was blasted for saying this. However, I don't see how you can honestly claim otherwise. Wikipedia doesn't follow the GFDL, and never has. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse third parties from not following the GFDL. Given that only the terms of the GFDL will allow wikipedia to switch At least it's honest.

So, the authors directly relate to give completely true form of contributed to switch to assume your minimally acceptable is because of share-alike, but you are contribution? skype: node.ue 2009/3/21 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

Дана Sunday 22 March 2009 09:50:25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen написа: Doesn't simply licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0 cover that already?

2009/3/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>: ... Absolutely: me naming you as Jussi was just sloppy shorthand. Jussi-Ville it is :-)