I have read some nonsense written by Moeller and others in this thread.
Erik Moeller "Full duplication of history sections is only one aspect of that overall complexity.
That said, it's always been an accepted practice for web use to attribute by linking to the history. Because CC-BY-SA allows attribution requirements to be detailed in terms of use, it will make it straightforward for us to codify attribution requirements in a manner that is accepted and largely mirrors current practice. In fact, the language that could be used for this purpose could be very similar to the one proposed by Gregory Maxwell here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text
My question for anyone opposed to this approach is this: Do you acknowledge that there is a problem with GFDL-licensing in terms of compatibility and ease of re-use, and if so, how do you propose to solve it?"
Michael Peel: "Note that for the GFDL the requirement is that five (or all if less than 5) of the principle authors of the document (which I would interpret as an article) should be attributed."
Moeller "We'll try to formulate that attribution guideline as part of the full proposal (and it'll be discussed further from there before we go into voting). As I mentioned earlier up-thread, it'll likely look similar to what is suggested here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text
Codifying a similar clause in the Wikimedia-wide terms of use is fully consistent with attribution requirements of the GFDL. There seems to be some confusion related to the "History" section of GFDL documents, the purpose of which is clearly change-tracking, not attribution, as its preservation is only explicitly required for modified versions. A reasonable attribution expectation of someone who licensed edits under GFDL would be to be attributed where possible (i.e. where there are five authors or fewer), and to be otherwise referred to the full list of authors."
I can only repeat my contribution (which has been fully ignored in this list)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-October/046729.html
"As I have shown at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Historiograf/GNU_FDL_Highway_to_Hell_-...
it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this wouldn't make sense.
The ADDENDUM gives the model for attribution for GFDL contributions:
"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page: Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"."
If you are verbatim copying you have to copy 1:1, id est to keep all sections including the section history with the collection of copyright notices according the ADDENDUM. In the notices are fields with the names of the authors.
For modifications there are the following relevant rules:
"D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document."
"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."
The WMF opinion that the version history isn't the section history is clearly wrong. After each modification something has to be added to the section history OR the section history has to be created. Thus one can only conclude that the section history is the version history.
A line in the version history is both copyright notice and part of the section history."
It is also false to say that the linking to the history is generally accepted.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-February/038942.html "There is no consensus in the German Wikipedia that the "Gentlemen agreement" is a valid interpretation of the GNU FDL. Wikimedia Deutschland has no right to give an assurance that GNU FDL allows to omit the version history which is IMHO the section "History" of the GNU FDL. The section history is part of the document and has to be reproduced when "Verbatim Copyying". This is the way author's rights on attribution is respected by the GNU FDL."
For a proof of this have a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lizenzbestimmungen (and its history)
"Im Falle einer Online-Weiterverbreitung von Inhalten der Wikipedia berufen sich einige Nutzer [some user] auf ein informelles „Gentlemen's Agreement", das jedoch nicht dem Wortlaut der GFDL entspricht und zu dessen Nutzung daher nicht geraten werden kann. [cannot be recommended]"
This is consensus since May 2008.
The main problems with linking to the history as attribution:
* If articles were moved - the links doesn't work and the license expires
* If articles were deleted - dito
* If the Wikimedia project is offline - dito.
Practical problems cannot overrule the legal code of the GNU FDL/CC. This code isn't only valid in the US but can also be the basis of a litigation at a German court (e.g. if a re-user like SPIEGEL Wissen is concerned). Thus not only US law is relevant.
"By clicking SUBMIT you accept the CC attribution scheme for this AND all your older contributions"
This could not solve the problems with old content of not-active users. This would also cause problems with IP contributions.
It's not my duty to solve the problems of the WMF. If it was possible that Bertelsmann has printed thousands of nicks in the "Einbänder" - why should it be impossible to make similar obligations for re-users?
Klaus Graf
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike Godwin have to say about this. I also don't think that any license is able to say "you don't need to give attribution to [all] authors", even it is about CC-BY. (Otherwise, copyleft licenses seems like a decoration over PD.)
Yes, some reasonable solution should be found, but [all] authors should be attributed somehow. (Let's say, by referring to some other work.)
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike Godwin have to say about this. I also don't think that any license is able to say "you don't need to give attribution to [all] authors", even it is about CC-BY. (Otherwise, copyleft licenses seems like a decoration over PD.)
Yes, some reasonable solution should be found, but [all] authors should be attributed somehow. (Let's say, by referring to some other work.)
Ah, here is the answer, which seems to me good enough:
"CC-BY-SA allows more flexible attribution choices than GFDL does, so that attribution constraints can be specified by the author or (more commonly) agreed to by everyone who chooses to contribute to the wiki. (If you don't like the attribution norms of a particular wiki you're considering contributing to, you can choose not to contribute, of course.) For Wikipedia, attribution will continue on the project more or less as it has in the past. What will be clearer is that linking to a History page (or pages), which is what Wikipedia has normally done, is an acceptable form of attribution, both within Wikipedia and with regard to off-project reuse of Wikipedia content, at least for content where the author lists would otherwise be onerous to reproduce."
From: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers
2009/1/8 Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com:
You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this wouldn't make sense.
The key point is that the GFDL does not require to give attribution _by_ reproducing the history section. You have not made any case that the history section in GFDL documents was created for purposes of attribution. It wasn't; its purpose is the documentation of changes. The CC-BY-SA has similar attribution _and_ documentation of changes requirements. However, its documentation of changes requirements are not onerous and can be flexibly interpreted (see 3.b in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ).
We can build the terms of attribution around existing, established practice that meets reasonable expectations of volunteers. Referring to a copy of the history where reproducing such a list would be unreasonable and onerous is one such practice. I don't see any evidence that it has been historically a reasonable expectation of volunteers to always have a full list of names and changes included with any copy; in fact, it appears like most of the arguments to this effect were made purely for reasons of legal literalism, rather than to satisfy any actual perceived need. With a migration to CC-BY-SA, that argument loses its legal footing.
The ADDENDUM gives the model for attribution for GFDL contributions:
And, again, you are supporting the above point: if the copyright notice exists for purposes of attribution, then the history section does not. Whether or not the GFDL requires reproduction of the history section is irrelevant for purposes of considering the attribution requirements as they will exist under CC-BY-SA. What's relevant is that there is continuity in meeting reasonable expectations that people may have had when making their content available under GFDL.
The main problems with linking to the history as attribution:
- If articles were moved - the links doesn't work and the license expires
That should be technically addressable by making history links follow redirects.
- If articles were deleted - dito
And the infringement can be pointed out accordingly.
- If the Wikimedia project is offline - dito.
For short term intervals, that's a minor issue. For long term periods (e.g. WMF goes bankrupt), again, it's an infringement which can be pointed out and corrected.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com:
You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this wouldn't make sense.
The key point is that the GFDL does not require to give attribution _by_ reproducing the history section.
How not? Are you saying that the GFDL does not require reproducing the history section, or are you saying that reproducing the history section does not provide attribution?
You have not made any case that the history section in GFDL documents was created for purposes of attribution.
Actually, he did. He quoted the preamble, and said "If there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this [preamble] wouldn't make sense."
I don't see any
evidence that it has been historically a reasonable expectation of volunteers to always have a full list of names and changes included with any copy
Maybe not, but there has always been a reasonable expectation that the full list of names and changes would be easily accessible to anyone receiving a copy.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org