Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/25/05, The Hooded Man hoodedman@shadowedcorner.com wrote:
Perhaps it will, but the foundation will not be able steal credit from the actual authors of the works in Wikipedia for itself, at least not without a legal fight. Most quality works in Wikipedia are the work of a small number of authors per work, not these massively collaborative efforts as has been misrepresented to the free software foundation.
I think the point is:
1.) Do you think Wikimedia would do this?
2.) They would not be able to do this. A legal fight would be stupid; database dumps are publicly available that clearly show full author history.
If Wikimedia wanted to steal the articles, they could delete the entire edit history and remove it from all database dumps. But then people would still have them. It's impossible for them to do that.
3.) There is nothing that can be legally "stolen". By writing an article, the authors have released their work under the GFDL.
Let's not get into conspiracy theories.
There is no conspiracy theory needed. You ask "would the foundation do this", but we need to first be clear on what 'this' means. If 'this' means treating our authors in any way which is unethical today, I stand firmly that the answer is clearly no. In the future, I can not answer because my crystal ball is not that powerful. If 'this' means to work to cause changes to be made to future versions of the licenses which temporarily increase the foundations ease at the expense at removing the protection of the authors from unethical actions in the future, I must answer a resounding yes because it is demonstrably true.
The Wikimedia foundation has been quietly advocating to the Creative Commons and the Free Software foundations alterations to further versions of the appropriate licenses which will allow the operators of websites such as Wikipedia the authority to permit redistribution of content submitted to their website with attribution to the site rather than the author of the content. In effect, the *single* remaining tangible return an author of freely licensed content receives (their authorship credit) will be removed and granted to the priesthood of intellectual property barons who have apparently earned the right to take credit for the blood and sweat of a world of people because of their great feat of operating a website.
For the latest in the implementation of this grand vision, take a look at the terms of the CC-Wiki license, or the mysteriously vague attribution terms so cowardly sneaked into CC-BY-SA v2.0. These changes to cc-by-sa could have been implemented as another CC license flag 'CA' (community attribution) but instead it was decided to include the changes into the root license with no mention in the layman version, presumably because such a change would fail to change the license of existing works against the consent of the authors and would probably too much attention to this difficult issue. Although this has not been widely noticed, I certainly am not the only one... For example see the interesting distribution terms on enwiki User:Jamesday.
When you start using terms like "mysteriously vague attribution terms so cowardly sneaked" you lost your ground because by giving it these kind of attributes you remove room for discussion. If that is your intention, you moved yourself from [[category:Reasonable]].
There is one fundamental problem that I have with your stance; I do not understand what you want to achieve and how you want to square that with the WMF aims. In my opinion the point of these aims is to bring information to all people in their language. That is the whole reason why we do this. The important aspect of the license is that is has a viral aspect. This means that the information that we provide is Free and remains Free. Typically all articles are the work of multiple people. It is also true that the only place where you can find reliably what the contributions are of one person is on his contributions page. When you are interested in personal glory then Wikipedia is not the right medium for you. In its history pages, you will find detailed information on what somebody contributed. This is much more than what the GFDL requires us to have. It is exceedingly relevant information for all kinds of purposes.
The argument used to advance this change is that, somehow, by being submitted to a collaborative authorship site a document no longer has authors but is somehow authored by the 'community'. In some cases a compelling argument can indeed be made that there was no effective single person author of the work, but even in these cases (which I contend are rare) it takes a fantastic leap of faith to make the claim that some organization (non-profit or otherwise) is the sole official legal voice of the above mentioned ephemeral 'community' of authors simple because they operate a website which is used by that community. But, indeed, that is exactly what is being claimed and what is being swallowed because it's a lot easier to pretend that a website operator represents the community because the reality of the matter (that the community is a shifting cloud of unclear membership and representation) is useless for solving the real challenges presented by the requirement of preserving something as simple as authorship credit in the world of paper.
There is again one relevant point that you fail to notice. The WMF does NOT own any copyright and neither do the licenses argue that the WMF is the owner of the copyright. This ownership of the copyright is the one relevant thing. The consequence is that your arguments are NOT about copyright but about LICENSE. The difference between license and copyright is that a copyright owner can, when he is the sole owner of this right of a work, publish this work under a different license as well. Within our project that is not an option.
The other point is a difference of emphasis. The WMF is about the publication of information. We have always been willing to have others do the distribution of this information as well because we want to make our information as widely available as possible. The changes in the license are designed to ease the distribution of the content. The authorship credit is preserved within the Wikimedia Foundation projects really well. The compulsory attribution provides two things; it points the way to where faulty information can be amended and it is the place where authors are credited for EXACTLY what they contributed.
Basically we're reaching a point where silly details like the moral obligation to credit the authors of a work are hindering the grand vision of the knowledge of the world made available to all at the lowest cost possible. This is a hard problem, so rather than dealing with it head on, the details are being swept under the rug. Licenses will and have been retroactively changed to reflect this prioritization of the quick solution over ethical obligations.
Again, you remove the relevancy of your argument by calling arguments "silly". The suggestion that these changes are unethical is faulty because you did not even touch first base; the copyright. Consequently you are wrong. One thing to realise is, is that the WMF cannot go to court over copyright or license infringements. It is the copyright holders read the authors that can.
Normally I would not worry about this, because such changes which defy the character of the licenses agreed to by the creators of content would never stand... but the more I consider the issue the more I realize how many differing forces will support such changes for both laudable (in the case of the foundation) and selfish reasons, and it leaves me feeling unsure and angry.
Feeling angry leaves you in a state where it is hard for you to see the reason in the arguments on the other side of this equation. That is a shame.
Thanks, GerardM