On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> 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). On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Reread section 9.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.

2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: 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)? -- geni

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

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!).

2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: Being querulous? - d.

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 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?

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 It's *already* a modified version. 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." 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. Images can (and are) already licensed under the CC licenses.

Erik Moeller wrote: 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

Anthony wrote: 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. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote: I've stopped.

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(a)inbox.org>

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: 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. 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).

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Tell it to the judge.

2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: How's the legal track record on trying to take back rights released under a free licence? - d.

2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: 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.

2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: 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. 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. 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. Here you are again deliberately misrepresenting the actual proposed standards of attribution. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate