Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this subject instead of discussing different external search services to the mailing list?
What is it specifically that you want to know? The discussions on this mailing list were largely for the benefit of those involved in the discussion, not for others to get a summary afterward. Furthermore, they were censored to the point where they weren't able to get to the heart of the matter, which is a fundamental difference on the moral issues surrounding copyright law, attribution, integrity rights, etc.
I am somewhat curious as to the allegation of censorship on this list. Do forward old e-mails by you that were blocked, to me personally, if you retain any.
Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote for the change.
I don't see how this is warranted. As it stands the TOS proposed is certainly semantically confusing, but hardly in stark opposition to intellectual property. In fact Lawrence Lessig is on record as stating taht CC licenses *depend* on intellectual property rights, even if their purport is to maximally facilitate unlimited re-use, and keeping the content in play for re-use.
Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural right which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote? Vote against the change, or refuse to vote at all.
Now this is just simply beyond the pale. You know full well that the license as such is implicitly BY. And there is no TOS under vote that would clearly deny any such purported natural right. The license even states that whereas jurisdictions have moral rights legislation, nothing in the license can be construed as limiting those exceptions to the remit of the license itself.
Fortunately the license under vote is unsorted. Like I have said before, I would prefer TOS that would require multiple licensing under all localized license forms, but as a compromise it is enough that a specific jurisdiction is not chosen as a privileged one.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What is it specifically that you want to know? The discussions on this mailing list were largely for the benefit of those involved in the discussion, not for others to get a summary afterward. Furthermore,
they
were censored to the point where they weren't able to get to the heart
of
the matter, which is a fundamental difference on the moral issues surrounding copyright law, attribution, integrity rights, etc.
I am somewhat curious as to the allegation of censorship on this list. Do forward old e-mails by you that were blocked, to me personally, if you retain any.
I was not put on moderation, I was warned. Call it censorship via chilling effects, if you'd like. See below:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Please Stop It.
This thread used to be on the "Re-licensing" issue, which is an issue many people are interested it. Thus, you can't even bring up the usual "Well, it's off-topic, but everyone can filter it out of their inbox by a subject-filter" counter-argument, because many people actually *do* care about the Re-licensing and do not intend at all to filter it out of their inbox. What has happened, though, is that the thread has first been hijacked by a discussion about "moral rights" and other legal and philosophical concepts (which I myself found at least interesting, if completely off-topic) and now, it has gone down to a rather pathetic "I have studied philosophy, you have no clue." "I don't need to have studied philosophy to have a clue." "I have studied Mathematics and you are a bad philosopher" type of chat, which is an absolute no-go.
Really, take it offlist. I hope I don't need to enforce this plea because I'm not actually in the mood to do so.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote
for
the change.
I don't see how this is warranted. As it stands the TOS proposed is certainly semantically confusing, but hardly in stark opposition to intellectual property. In fact Lawrence Lessig is on record as stating taht CC licenses *depend* on intellectual property rights, even if their purport is to maximally facilitate unlimited re-use, and keeping the content in play for re-use.
How would you suggest someone strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property" should vote, then? Considering that the main proponent of the proposal, Erik Moeller, is strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property", it seems like a given that someone else who feels similarly should vote in favor of the move.
Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural
right
which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote?
Vote
against the change, or refuse to vote at all.
Now this is just simply beyond the pale. You know full well that the license as such is implicitly BY.
The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably changes the form of attribution required.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural
right
which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote?
Vote
against the change, or refuse to vote at all.
Now this is just simply beyond the pale. You know full well that the license as such is implicitly BY.
The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably changes the form of attribution required.
If you yourself believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural right which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote, I'd be happy to discuss this further with you. If not, then such a discussion would be pointless.
Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote
for
the change.
I don't see how this is warranted. As it stands the TOS proposed is certainly semantically confusing, but hardly in stark opposition to intellectual property. In fact Lawrence Lessig is on record as stating taht CC licenses *depend* on intellectual property rights, even if their purport is to maximally facilitate unlimited re-use, and keeping the content in play for re-use.
How would you suggest someone strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property" should vote, then? Considering that the main proponent of the proposal, Erik Moeller, is strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property", it seems like a given that someone else who feels similarly should vote in favor of the move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
I think it isn't public knowledge what Erik's full personal feelings on the current proposal are, as it is under vote.
Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural
right
which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote?
Vote
against the change, or refuse to vote at all.
Now this is just simply beyond the pale. You know full well that the license as such is implicitly BY.
The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably changes the form of attribution required.
I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think differently.
I will just agree to disagree with them on that point, and keep stipulating publicly that it is a remote possibility that where the failure point of those arguments would be, if any, would ever in practice come into play.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
I highly doubt you're correct, but moreover I find it astonishing that you find it admirable to undermine one's own core beliefs.
I think it isn't public knowledge what Erik's full personal
feelings on the current proposal are, as it is under vote.
I'm assuming good faith that Erik wouldn't work so hard to push for a proposal he doesn't support. But I guess you find such behavior admirable, while I'd find it despicable, so I guess we've reached an impasse.
The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also
includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably
changes
the form of attribution required.
I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think differently.
Once again you're trying to argue a belief which you yourself do not hold. In this case it's a quite clearly absurd belief, though. If the move changes nothing, why make it? I guess someone might dispute what I said by changing the meaning of the word "attribution", but I don't consider that a dispute in substance.
In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the individual right to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone who supports that right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote at all. If you want to nitpick whether or not this is indisputable, fine, I'll let you have your way. But indisputable or not, it is a true fact.
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
I highly doubt you're correct, but moreover I find it astonishing that you find it admirable to undermine one's own core beliefs.
I think your ascribing core beliefs to somebody, who does not inhabit your brain pan, is somewhat astonishing. Do you have the Mark I telepathy device hidden somewhere?
Personally I am assuming good faith on the part of Erik that he wants the wikimedia foundation in general to prosper, even if it means that he doesn't get his way in every detail. I suspect - and I admit this verges on failing to assume good faith on your part - that you often fail in this respect, out of some weakness in the way you color peoples liberty to orient themselves in a world of complexity.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
I highly doubt you're correct, but moreover I find it astonishing that
you
find it admirable to undermine one's own core beliefs.
I think your ascribing core beliefs to somebody, who does not inhabit your brain pan, is somewhat astonishing. Do you have the Mark I telepathy device hidden somewhere?
No, I've read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence
Personally I am assuming good faith on the part of Erik that he wants the wikimedia foundation in general to prosper, even if it means that he doesn't get his way in every detail.
And I'm assuming good faith on the part of Erik that he wouldn't be strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property" unless he believed that such a position would be a prosperous one.
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think differently.
Once again you're trying to argue a belief which you yourself do not hold. In this case it's a quite clearly absurd belief, though. If the move changes nothing, why make it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy&am...
I do disagree it is remotely on point to say my phrasing above implies *nothing* is changed, just that attribution cannot be claimed to be saliently at play, as the current proposal is being voted on, even if I personally think the terms of service in their current phrasing are somewhat silly.
What is changed are precisely the things that RMS himself has said are provisions of the GFDL that are a poor fit for us. That is the issue, plain and simple. If you can't wrap your mind around that concept, after we all on this list have drawn the diagram for you again and again,...
I guess someone might dispute what I said by changing the meaning of the word "attribution", but I don't consider that a dispute in substance.
In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the individual right to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone who supports that right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote at all. If you want to nitpick whether or not this is indisputable, fine, I'll let you have your way. But indisputable or not, it is a true fact.
To come half-way to meet you, even if I suspect you won't like it, I do think there are sincere proponents of the current proposal, who *do* see it as a wedge that can be used in the future to promote a silly "free cultural works" agenda. That is as may be. That is for the future. I personally think they are misguided in thinking such use of this proposal, that clearly improves the situation in future, will in the end work to the ends they envision, but I have to admit I am an optimist.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
What is changed are precisely the things that RMS himself has said are provisions of the GFDL that are a poor fit for us. That is the issue, plain and simple.
I think it's enough to say that it changes things that some of the contributors didn't think would be changed. That's enough to make the proposal unacceptable.
2009/4/17 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
If the TOS are the work of anyone else they are keeping awfully quiet.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org