[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Brian]

This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:

> Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the redirect page would need to be fixed..)


With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
when it existed in any language version:

Wikipedia


For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned
images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are
lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and
you can find the author.

I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says
something reasonable for a change?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:

> > 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
>>
>
>