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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Anthony, what is it that you want to achieve by cooperating in Wikipedia?
Why is it that you give such an emphasis on YOUR copyright in this. What
makes what you have done so special ?
Thanks,
     Gerard

2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
> > >> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
> > >> everything we do (except, for some reason, with the 3RR, I've never
> > >> understood that... but that's a discussion for another time and
> > >> place). Also, if we say 50% is all that's required and the result
> > >> comes out as 50.3% or something, you should know it's going to cause
> > >> massive drama (if we chose 60% and the results is 60.3% there is still
> > >> going to be plenty of drama, of course, but hopefully less). I'd go
> > >> with a requirement of 60%, but that's really just a number plucked out
> > >> of thin air, I welcome suggestions from people with actual reasons!
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say 100%, because you shouldn't purport to take away someone's
> right
> > to
> > > attribution without their permission.
> >
> > We discussing a move to CC-****BY****-SA, attribution is still
> > required.
> >
>
> Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.
>
> I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
> > CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
> > whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest
> > editor or all editors),
>
>
> Yes, CC-BY-SA is extremely confusing on this point.  That's another reason
> not to use it.
>
> but it seems clear to me that we can require
> > people to link back to Wikipedia (in particular, the history page) so
> > that everyone is, at least indirectly, attributed. Given that that's
> > how most people are using the GFDL anyway, I really don't see the
> > problem.
>
>
> There are very few offline reusers of Wikipedia content.  I know of none
> that are using more than de minimis portions of my content without
> attributing me.  If you know of any, please, tell me who they are, and I'll
> send a cease and desist to them.
>
> 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.  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.
> The WMF condoning and facilitating such behavior is absolutely
> unacceptable,
> no matter how many people "vote" to do so.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>