[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Brian]

> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
> problem).

Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only.

A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be
attributed to them in a flexible manner.

I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on every
bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would consider
flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is not
explicitly listed, fair attribution to them.

I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against a
hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a
Uniform Resource Locator anyway?  "It specifies where an identified resource
is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia)

We can do that without including all the http:// bits.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu>:
> > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>
> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
>
> Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have
> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book.
>
> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary
> problem).
>
> > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
> > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to
> make
> > it easier.
>
> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work
> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"?
>
> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more
> practical
> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL?
>
> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the
> situation.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>