[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[John at Darkstar]

Anthony skrev:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:11 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:
> 
>> I've asked about this some time back, and the answare was that Wikipedia
>> is a collection of independent work, meaning each one of them has to
>> list the principal authors of that work. The collection as such is a
>> database and may or may not be a work in itself.
>>
> 
> 1) Who told you that?  2) Can the names be combined into a single list?  I
> don't see why not.

*is* should be *can be* in the first sentence.

The person, the actual name is insignificant, said that such a
collection is an independent work and should be attributed as such
together with attribution for each contained work. It is also possible
to interpret it as a database, sort of special notation in
"Åndsverksloven" (http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#43) -
law about artistic works or intellectual property or something like that
- it gives the database protection as if it is a work of art. It is not
obvious which one is most suitable for Wikipedia. An interpretation as a
database seems more on line with WMF being an isp.

I don't think it really says anything about attribution for the content
of the database, but §6, which does not apply to a database says; Er det
to eller flere opphavsmenn til et åndsverk uten at de enkeltes ytelser
kan skilles ut som særskilte verk, erverver de opphavsrett til verket i
fellesskap. If there are two or more creators for a work of art and none
of the contributions can be singled out as independent works, they will
collectively own the "copyright". I use quotation as opphavsrett is not
similar to copyright but its close enough. Note that the articles in
Wikipedia is clearly independent works that can be singled out, which
means they should be attributed individually.

Attribution can be organized any way appropriate as long as it is
according to "good practice. The same § 3 says this "The rights after
the first and second paragraphs can not be released, unless the use of
the work in question is limited after the nature and scope." That is, a
license that does not request attribution can't be used in such a
manner, you may use it but still you will have to attribute the authors.
It is although possible to say that a limited use can be done without
attribution, lets say someone printing out a single hardcopy.

> Also, a failure to state the principal authors does not release any
>> later work from giving due attribution. The attribution is a property of
>> the work itself and not for some random copy of the work, that is each
>> copy has to give due respect to the authors of the work not the authors
>> of the previous copy.
> 
> 
> Absolutely agreed.  My longstanding interpretation of the GFDL was that
> attribution of all (non de-minimus) authors was required, in the section
> Entitled History.  Considering moral rights laws and the ethical principles
> behind them, I still believe this is the correct interpretation, and that
> the phrase "as given on its Title page" should be interpreted to apply only
> to "publisher of the Document".
> __

My guess is that a history link should exist if appropriate, if
necessary at a the original publisher/isp/whattever (WM-site) but
prinsipal authors should be attributed anyhow at copies.

John