Anthony writes:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal" re-use.
The WMF doesn't hold a copyright over the dumps, they merely distribute it (in violation of copyright law, I might add).
Could you spell out your legal theory here, counselor?
--Mike
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal" re-use.
The WMF doesn't hold a copyright over the dumps, they merely distribute it (in violation of copyright law, I might add).
Could you spell out your legal theory here, counselor?
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
My suggestion that editors might choose to opt out was informed by my strong belief that only a very editors would even want to. Contributions to wiki projects are already subject to an immense amount of merger and conflation with other people's contributions, but I suppose if anyone really felt that the copyrights in *his particular edits* were being used in a way that violated his intent to license them freely for others to use, that that person probably would feel strongly enough to review some or all of his edits and remove them. Obviously, anyone that passionate about this issue will have the energy to do this. My expressed view was that we not stand in such a person's way.
If I thought others would follow your suggestion I might actually take you up on that, but considering that 1) it's merely a suggestion and not WMF policy, and 2) that would require me logging in to Wikipedia and hitting "submit", which is something I haven't done since the new version of the GFDL appeared; I'm not going to do that at this time.
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have
no
license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30
days
ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
Reread section 9.
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have
no
license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30
days
ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
Reread section 9.
Ok, I've reread it, it says this:
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
Even if WMF had violated the license, the license would be terminated automatically, not by you.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
have
no
license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
the
GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30
days
ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
Reread section 9.
Ok, I've reread it, it says this:
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
Even if WMF had violated the license, the license would be terminated automatically, not by you.
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Err you realise that there is at present no GFDL 1.3 only content on wikipedia (there is a very small amount on commons due a misunderstanding)?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss.
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss.
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <
thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss.
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Sure, but the license they're using doesn't recognise complaints so your complaint can only really be considered to be an informal request for them to change what they're doing. If you want to take any formal action you'll need to file a lawsuit (please don't! The fact that you're here suggests you did, at some point, support what we're doing here, please don't ruin it!).
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
any
license I have granted them.
Sure, but the license they're using doesn't recognise complaints so your complaint can only really be considered to be an informal request for them to change what they're doing.
Under the GFDL 1.2 their rights are AUTOMATICALLY terminated. Under GFDL 1.3 they can be reinstated if you don't notify them.
If you want to take any formal action you'll need to file a lawsui
A DMCA takedown notice would be a better next step. I highly doubt going all the way to a lawsuit would be necessary.
(please don't! The fact that you're here suggests you did, at some point, support what we're doing here, please don't ruin it!).
It would be trivial for me to send a DMCA takedown notice. I haven't done so, because I think there's still hope that they're going to do the right thing, and I'd rather come to a mutual agreement than threaten lawsuits. I only explicitly invoked permanent termination under the GFDL to protect myself from having my license rewritten. Erik is already trying to justify this rewriting of the rules by saying that "it's always been an accepted practice for web use to attribute by linking to the history". Of course this is false, because I've *repeatedly* stated my objection to this on this very mailing list, but apparently raising an objection here isn't enough. Maybe a lawsuit now is the only way I can stop this gradual removal of my rights. Erik has made his wishes abundantly clear. He is "strongly opposed to all types of 'intellectual property'."
I *did* support what you were doing. Of course, that was mostly before the arbitration committee, before three revert rule enforcement, before WP:NOTE, before Carolyn Doran, before Jimbo was accused of embezzeling, before the fraudulent budgets, before GFDL 1.3, before lots of things.
2009/1/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL with regards to what they are doing. Suffice to say the foundation isn't actually required to credit you in any way shape or form with regards to the dumps (since they are effectively verbatim copying and since there are no cover texts section 3 doesn't place any significant further requirements).
You may not like this but that would be inconsistent with your claims to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
any
license I have granted them.
I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL with regards to what they are doing. Suffice to say the foundation isn't actually required to credit you in any way shape or form with regards to the dumps (since they are effectively verbatim copying and since there are no cover texts section 3 doesn't place any significant further requirements).
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.
You may not like this but that would be inconsistent with your claims
to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0.
I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0. 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. Further, there seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require "a link" to such attribution, and that's even worse. 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 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.
You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just as well. Obviously you think there are some "onerous requirements" in the GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all?
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
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. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that rather than a modified version.
I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0.
That doesn't even make sense
Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0.
You've never demonstrated an ability to understand any free license or copyright law in general so that doesn't greatly concern me.
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.
Further, there seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require "a link" to such attribution, and that's even worse.
That is actually a step up from what the GFDL requires (and remember the GFDL has no problems in principle with stuff being provided by link see the whole transparent copy stuff)
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.
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.
You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just as well. Obviously you think there are some "onerous requirements" in the GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all?
Because switching because allowing the shift to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is their way of removing them. About the only remotely significant stuff still under the GFDL once the switch is over will be software manuals for which the GFDL is merely a tolerably bad license.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
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.
geni wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
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.
Its actually the GFDL that has the "5 principle authors" thing, section 4.
2009/1/10 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
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. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that rather than a modified version.
I'm not sure about that - the author of the derivative work just sends it to the foundation, the foundation is the first to actually distribute it. I'm not sure how it all works legally and with respect to the license, but I'm not sure it's as simple as you make out. (I know the foundation denies being a publisher for legal reasons, and perhaps they are correct legally speaking, but by the standard meaning of the word (one who makes something public) the foundation are quite clearly the publisher of Wikipedia.)
2009/1/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
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.
You are completely free to oppose the switch because you find the license incomprehensible or difficult to understand. (We will, of course, try to answer all reasonable questions as to the meaning of the license, and I've invited CC to participate in this conversation.) However, the FDL 1.3 allows for precisely the kind of update we are proposing, and such a migration has been validated by the General Counsel of Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and the Free Software Foundation.
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with 1) established practices on Wikipedia; 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License; 3) the ethics of the free culture movement; 4) the legal language of both licenses; 5) the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia.
On that latter point, a person making an edit will surely not fail to notice that their name does not actually appear _at all_ in any obvious location after they have done so. If anything, after making this update, we will attribute more clearly and consistently, and the same standards will apply to all. For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article. The notion that this is a conspiracy theory to remove or reduce attribution comes from a deep misunderstanding of law, ethics, practices, and the human experience.
Erik Moeller wrote:
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with
- established practices on Wikipedia;
- the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License;
- the ethics of the free culture movement;
- the legal language of both licenses;
- the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia.
On that latter point, a person making an edit will surely not fail to notice that their name does not actually appear _at all_ in any obvious location after they have done so. If anything, after making this update, we will attribute more clearly and consistently, and the same standards will apply to all. For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article. The notion that this is a conspiracy theory to remove or reduce attribution comes from a deep misunderstanding of law, ethics, practices, and the human experience.
The sentence in the above that interests me the most, is:
"For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article."
I would be interested in a clarification on this point. Do you mean less than six people who have edited the article ever, or less than six people whose text remains in the current form of the article?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with
- established practices on Wikipedia;
- the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License;
- the ethics of the free culture movement;
- the legal language of both licenses;
- the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia.
As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
If anything, after making this update, we will attribute more clearly and consistently, and the same standards will apply to all.
Why wait under after the switch? Why not start by complying with the GFDL, before you even begin discussing changing it to some other license.
For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article.
It should be on the title page, i.e., next to the title.
The notion that this is a conspiracy theory to remove or reduce attribution comes from a deep misunderstanding of law, ethics, practices, and the human experience.
I don't see the WMF reducing or removing attribution any more than they have already been doing (but maybe I'm wrong, what has happened so far has already surprised me - I never thought the FSF would go along with this plan, in fact it had been promised that they couldn't). What I see the WMF doing is: 1) changing the license to fit their practices, rather than changing their practices to fit the license; and 2) encouraging others to distribute the content without attributing the vast majority of the authors.
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
Since the GFDL doesn't actually require that you credit the author at all in many cases technically true but not actually helpful towards your position.
Why wait under after the switch? Why not start by complying with the GFDL, before you even begin discussing changing it to some other license.
Wikipedia for the most part complies with the GFDL as has been explained to you many many times. That you are unable to grasp this is not ultimately our problem mind.
It should be on the title page, i.e., next to the title.
Look where the history tab is.
I don't see the WMF reducing or removing attribution any more than they have already been doing (but maybe I'm wrong, what has happened so far has already surprised me - I never thought the FSF would go along with this plan, in fact it had been promised that they couldn't). What I see the WMF doing is: 1) changing the license to fit their practices, rather than changing their practices to fit the license; and 2) encouraging others to distribute the content without attributing the vast majority of the authors.
CC-BY-SA actually has stronger author crediting command than the GFDL so your conspiracy theories are again flawed.
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with
- established practices on Wikipedia;
- the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License;
- the ethics of the free culture movement;
- the legal language of both licenses;
- the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia.
As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
No, that does not follow. The fact that a license developed for software manuals is not particularly well-suited for radically open online collaboration was discovered early by stakeholders in said license. That doesn't make it an unethical or poorly written license; it simply makes it the wrong tool for the job.
That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
Except that it is not the actual interpretation that anyone is proposing. What is proposed is to provide a reference to a list of names where that list is very long. Considering that many if not most usernames only become meaningful when resolved to user page URLs, pointing people to the history is in fact arguably more useful than e.g. simply stating that Dogmaster3000 was one of 50 usernames contributing to an article, and not more onerous for anyone seeking to determine the meaning of the attribution.
That is not to say that this method of attribution cannot be improved; it can. It's been proposed by various people to track attribution data on a separate page from the version history. Ideally, such attribution data could be provided for a specific version of a page. This could be complemented with brief profile information ("John Doe, an anthropologist from Houston, Texas") to better serve the purpose of giving credit. Moreover, in the cases where there are few authors, algorithms can be continually improved to exclude vandals and other edits with no copyrightable value.
Ultimately, the outcome of a consistent principle of attribution-by-URL under certain circumstances is more attribution, not less, as people can come into compliance more easily.
What I see the WMF doing is: 1) changing the license to fit their practices, rather than changing their practices to fit the license;
I would change "their" to "our", but otherwise I agree with this statement. Bringing rules in compliance with practices when this is consistent with a widely shared understanding of the public interest is precisely one of the principles of any social reform; enforcing rules against such a shared understanding is precisely an example of questionable social coercion.
- encouraging others to
distribute the content without attributing the vast majority of the authors.
Here you are again deliberately misrepresenting the actual proposed standards of attribution.
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis "have always worked", namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis "have always worked", namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text.
I've stopped.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis "have always worked", namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text.
I've stopped.
By the way, I stopped during a period where the rules at least stated that such cut-and-paste moves were unacceptable and would be fixed, and before I realized this was never intended to be followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves
The vast majority of my edits took place prior to July 2007. Wikipedia was a much different place back then. There were already notions that it would become the way it is today, but there was still hope in my mind that it wouldn't.
Hoi, In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are not shared by all, for from it. The reason why the GFDL needs to be replaced is because we want to be better able to share. At that the GFDL is intended for the documentation of software and not at all for a project like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about bringing the sum of all knowledge to all people. From my perspective, this can be done by hook and by crook. I do not care when some material is abused under a different license, blame and shame sure, but the key thing is that the knowledge gets out there. The license we use is a means to an end, and that is something you have lost sight off.
The attitude you show is a proprietary one. You make it seem as if you can prevent the move to a more appropriate license from happening with you posturing.. I do resent this. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis "have always worked", namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text.
I've stopped.
By the way, I stopped during a period where the rules at least stated that such cut-and-paste moves were unacceptable and would be fixed, and before I realized this was never intended to be followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves
The vast majority of my edits took place prior to July 2007. Wikipedia was a much different place back then. There were already notions that it would become the way it is today, but there was still hope in my mind that it wouldn't. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are not shared by all, for from it.
But I own the copyright on the content I contributed, so I do get to dictate the rules. As for not playing the game, I'm not sure what game you're referring to. If people want to use a different license, that's fine with me. But if you want my content, you follow my rules.
The attitude you show is a proprietary one. You make it seem as if you can prevent the move to a more appropriate license from happening with you posturing.. I do resent this.
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
Tell it to the judge.
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
Tell it to the judge.
How's the legal track record on trying to take back rights released under a free licence?
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
Tell it to the judge.
How's the legal track record on trying to take back rights released under a free licence?
What is the purpose of this line of questioning, David?
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
Tell it to the judge.
How's the legal track record on trying to take back rights released under a free licence?
What is the purpose of this line of questioning, David?
To establish whether your claim that you can take back contributions you've licensed out holds water.
What's the track record of people trying to take back rights released under a free license, as you are purporting to do? How have they done when they take it to court and they and their opponent have to, as you phrase it, "tell it to the judge"?
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA.
Remove
my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again
(unless
you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet
Review
Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later," you can't take that back.
Tell it to the judge.
How's the legal track record on trying to take back rights released under a free licence?
What is the purpose of this line of questioning, David?
To establish whether your claim that you can take back contributions you've licensed out holds water.
You'd be better off going to Mike Godwin for such legal advice. 1) He's a lawyer, and 2) He's on your side.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis "have always worked", namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text.
I've stopped.
By the way, I stopped during a period where the rules at least stated that such cut-and-paste moves were unacceptable and would be fixed, and before I realized this was never intended to be followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves
A historical sidenote, for those following along at home (perhaps with popcorn?): The page Anthony linked to here refers to how to fix entire pages that are moved to new titles without using the "move" button. The move button was a technical development that allowed pages with their history to be moved intact; otherwise, people would just cut and past content to a new page, which didn't preserve the editing history. Fixing these moves is a somewhat complicated procedure that involves deleting the offending page then restoring it to merge the histories of the two articles. Cut and paste moves used to be much more common on en:, when people were still getting used to move procedures and subpages were allowed in the main space, but this merging technique is still sometimes necessary.
This procedure doesn't cover the more troublesome (from a copyright view) and much more common scenario of moving a paragraph of text from one article to a more appropriate one. E.g.: someone adds a biography of a basketball coach to an article about the team, not realizing that an article about the coach already exists. Someone moves the biographical paragraph to the appropriate article, thereby complying with a whole host of stylistic rules for the encyclopedia. Even if the mover complies with best practices and puts a full citation in their edit summary, only the most dedicated history analysis would be able to come up with the original author.
I do sometimes wonder how many of our pseudonymous and anonymous contributors are concerned with preserving their real-world copyrights in their work. "I want my spelling corrections to be attributed to Mr. Hottie25, no matter what happens to them."
-- phoebe
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about?
Being querulous?
- d.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss.
Both the GFDL and CC licenses contain "perpetual" clauses, to explicitly prevent this sort of (apologies to the list) WP:DICK behavior, Anthony.
Please stop aiming your shotgun at your foot, and it might help to put the safety on and unload it.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke the license...
GFDL 1.2 Section 9 causes you to lose all rights if you violate the license (no complaint necessary). Lawyers would have to argue about whether those losses are permanent or not.
GFDL 1.3 Section 9 gives a user of the license 30 days to comply after a complaint until termination is permanent.
-Robert Rohde
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org