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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
>
> >
> > The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
> > Not effectively, not even remotely close to it.  The only time they're
> even
> > arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
> > where I am the last author or for historical revisions.
>
> Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every
> modified version is first distributed by someone other than the
> foundation.


What is that, the "two wrongs make a right" argument?  If I distribute
illegal bootlegs of Star Wars and then you redistribute them, does that get
you off the hook?

No, they have a DMCA defense, but not once they receive a DMCA takedown
notice.

That the foundation then produces a  verbatim copy of that
> rather than a modified version.
>

It's *already* a modified version.


> >  It isn't clear what it means.
> > There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
> > attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
>
> The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in
> a section name and one reference to the section.
>
> There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would
> be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use
> the relevant clause.
>

Scroll up just a few messages and you see that Erik suggesting they will:
"The attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA are reasonably flexible, and we
can specify in the terms of use that e.g. with more than five authors,
attribution happens through a link to the History page."


> >  And then, topping it off, there
> > are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a
> > URL as "attribution".  And Creative Commons is working closely with these
> > people.  So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance
> > CC-BY-SA 4.0 will.
>
> I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they
> are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as
> acceptable attribution.


They pay attention to moral rights in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported.  But CC-BY-SA
3.0 Unported lets you relicense the work under any of the country-specific
licenses.


> > I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not.  But I'd rather
> > not chance it.  Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
> > point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
>
> There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC
> image on a postcard. GFDL not so much.
>

Images can (and are) already licensed under the CC licenses.