[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

geni geniice at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 22:12:31 UTC 2009

2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.

Where exactly does it say that attribution is not required under CC-BY-SA 3.0?

> Yes, CC-BY-SA is extremely confusing on this point.  That's another reason
> not to use it.

""Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic work,
the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work"

It's all editors (unless the most recent version is not derived from
previous versions). If you find that "extremely confusing" what makes
you think you are in a position to have informed opinions in this
area? Compared to many issues related to free licenses it is very

> This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
> reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing
> one or more URLs.

That would depend on the legal system and is somewhat questionable
even then. Arguing that a URL  is "reasonable to the medium or means"
in the case of say a book would be tricky to do.

> In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have
> taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the switch.

Not at all. There are quite a number of benefits. In fact one thing
the switch doesn't do is address the problem that copyright law as we
know it doesn't work to well about  20 authors. Other than MITT and
BSD style licenses all free licenses break down when you throw enough
authors at them.

> The WMF condoning and facilitating such behavior is absolutely unacceptable,
> no matter how many people "vote" to do so.

Ever read the foundation mission statement? See the "disseminate it
effectively and globally" bit. I would regard it as unacceptable for
them not to switch.

> You actually seem to recognize this to some extent, in that you realize that
> a 51% vote is not sufficient.  But then you randomly pick 60% as a magic
> threshold to use instead.  You welcomed alternate suggestions with actual
> reasons, and I gave you one.  100%, because you shouldn't purport to take
> away someone's right to attribution without their permission.

Reasons that are consistent with reality would probably do rather better.

> Even Mike Godwin seemed to recognize this principle in his early discussions
> on the topic, when he suggested that there would be a way to opt-out of the
> relicensing.  But my single question which I presented for the FAQ was left
> unanswered.  How can I opt out?

By not editing wikimedia foundation projects other than some wikinews projects.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list