Gregory Maxwell wrote:

On 12/24/05, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:

...

The GFDL license states:

B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

Now, you see - in the current database dumps, which are used on most of the Wikipedia mirrors (both online and offline), there's only the very last contributor.

Wouldn't it be wiser to add the authors of the article, even if their revisions should stay empty?

We provide all of the authors in the _full dumps. It is your responsibility to download the attribution if you want it. The GFDL obligates us to provide it, and we have fulfilled that obligation we are not required to shove it down your throat if you do not wish to download it.

Your complaint implies that someone could not distribute a GFDLed book on the web in page-per-chapter form because only the title page has attribution, clearly this can not be the case.

For practical purposes, we should consider offereing a dump that contains * articles * templates (which are needed for many articles) * a list of all author names That would contain everything needed to generate GFDL-compliant, complete articles, but still be much smaller than the full dumps.

We could put this information in the "articles" dump (slightly larger download for everyone) or create a new dump type (more memory and processor power needed to create and offer it).

Magnus

Hoi, The most important reason why the Wikipedia is GFDL is because it was the best that was on offer at the time. When you want to narrowly interpret what the GFDL says, you can. However this is not helpfull and the only consequence is that people will scorn this attitude and maybe even material that is published under this license.

The license and the way it is interpreted has been discussed and explained to the people that are involved with the license. The GPL is first going to be amended and then it will be the GFDL that will be modernised. The reason why is simple; the GFDL was not created with projects like Wikipedia in mind, it was intended for documentation associated with GPL software.

Have a merry Christmas and be happy with what we have been given.

Thanks, GerardM

On 12/25/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:

On 12/25/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:

...

For practical purposes, we should consider offereing a dump that contains

• articles
• templates (which are needed for many articles)
• a list of all author names

That would contain everything needed to generate GFDL-compliant, complete articles, but still be much smaller than the full dumps.

We could put this information in the "articles" dump (slightly larger download for everyone) or create a new dump type (more memory and processor power needed to create and offer it).

That is likely not enough, because you couldn't discover the principal authors that way... a great many republication worthy articles are almost entirely written by one or two people. But more importantly, a mere list of names would not appear to be enough to satisify the GFDL's requirement to 'Preserve the section Entitled "History"'.

It would be preferable to only include templates which are used in the main namespace, although that would further complicate the dumping process. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

From: wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org

[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Maxwell

Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:25 PM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] GFDL violation in the Wikimedia database dumps

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. -HoodedMan

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

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

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.

Absolutely. A solid foundation for protecting individual rights is preferable to a quick fix for the benefit of the impatent. A big part of ethics can be the consciousness of the effects and implications of one's actions. We cannot forsee all the effects of our actions, but we do have a duty to consider the most likely.

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.

The phrasing is a little dramatic. ;-) . Nevertheless it does point to issues around moral rights which, as I see it, go beyond copyrights. In the strict sense copyright is an economic right, and judicial systems are often established with economic rights in mind. Attempting to attach a monetary value to a moral right makes for a difficult transition.

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.

Having a "layman version" of a law or license only eacerbates the difficulties of having a law for the rich and a law for the poor. The layman can go on believing that his simplified version is the law until someone with greater access can trump him with some obscure clause from the full version. The only way that a simplified version can work is if any conflict the detailed cannot override the layman's version, but if that is the case then what's the point of having a detailed version. This is roughly akin to those politicians who proclaim that they want a simplification of tax forms without understanding that what is needed is a simplification of the underlying tax laws.

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.

I believe that if that website operator is going to defend the community then that defence also extends into the courts.to defend the collective rights of that community. It should be viewed as a duty. But that duty does not imply that it is the "sole" official voice. The individual authors should still reserve the right to mount their own defence, and the community needs to safeguard the evidence that will allow them to mount that defence.

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.

Retroactive changes open up yet another hornets' nest. This section is interesting:

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version
number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered
version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you
have the option of following the terms and conditions either of
that specified version or of any later version that has been
published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the
Document does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free
Software Foundation.

This seems to protect people from being bound by any changes which may be made to the license subsequent to their edits. Without conscious compliance to the new version the option to be bound by the old version would remain.

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.

Sure! But the arguments that will convince the most people will be those rooted in convenience.

I fear that we, the community of authors and spokesmen who support the propagation of knowledge freely to the world, have become so impatient with the slowness of achieving our goals that we have begun to take steps to extinguish the protective flame of decentralization which immunizes our work from the privatization, exploitation, and commercial imprisonment by greedy self interests, simply because the resulting legal obligations of that decentralized existence have become a temporary hindrance to our important goals.

I'm encouraged by hearing someone else understand that. I have no problem with undermining the entire copyright system as it is known because it undermines the greedheads. There are no shortcuts to that goal; shortcuts could even destroy the mission.

Such a move to promote the notion that the operator of a telecommunication service (isn't that what the foundation claims to be when it invokes the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA as a reassurance that our negligent handling of copyright matters will go unpunished) is granted a special position of unique control over the creative works by the users of that service will not only be supported by the operators of Wiki's who are currently so inconvenienced, but it will also be strongly supported by the newly re-merged telecommunications giants so eager to exercise their believed right to extract maximum profit from every bit transferred across their glass.

In other words we can't have it both ways. But there is more to this than mere negligence that can be repaired when it is brought to our attention. This is why I have always maintained that the real problem will not be with rights that Wikipedia has violated, but with the rights of Wikipedians that have been violated by others.

The words "theft" and "steal" constantly create confusion when applied to information, it is unfortunate that we use them. You are quite correct that no one can take away what we already have, but it is quite possible that through changes in license that powerful interests will be able to claim special rights over the works of others because of their ownership of telecommunications infrastructure at least that is the notion embodied by the proposed license changes. So that while you will be free to use the content you helped create, another group, by virtue of their operation of a telecommunications service, will be far more free. You can not claim that you are free so long as there is another group which has more freedom with the work you created.

The introduction of terms like "theft" and "piracy" has diverted attention away from what IIRC is the Jeffersonian principle in intellectual property that if you still have the item that is purportedly stolen it hasn't been stolen.

Welcome to the new serfdom.

Today we love and trust our telecommunications service providing masters, but what changes does the future bring?

All surfers are equal, but some are more equal than others. :-)

Ec

PS: I don't know why this thread is on the Wikitech list, so I've copied this response to the Foundation list, which really seems more appropriate.

Ec

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

On 12/25/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:

...

For practical purposes, we should consider offereing a dump that contains

• articles
• templates (which are needed for many articles)
• a list of all author names

That would contain everything needed to generate GFDL-compliant, complete articles, but still be much smaller than the full dumps.

We could put this information in the "articles" dump (slightly larger download for everyone) or create a new dump type (more memory and processor power needed to create and offer it).

That is likely not enough, because you couldn't discover the principal authors that way.

I'm thinking about third party publications here; the WikiReaders and DVDs, for example. They cannot fulfil the GFDL with the current article dump, as that lists only the last author. However, with a list of all authors, they can just list all of them, which is enough under the GFDL. For a work consisting of several articles, they have to name each author only once in the book/DVD.

So, for what a thrid publishing party needs: * articles only : Incomplete text, not GFDL-compliant; may not be published in large numbers * articles and templates: complete text, not GFDL-compliant; may not be published in large numbers * articles, templates, and authors: complete text, GFDL-compliant; may be published in large numbers

Magnus