[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Michael Peel]

Scenario 1: An article from Wikipedia is used elsewhere (be it on or  
offline), with a link to the history of the page. The article is  
subsequently deleted from Wikipedia (e.g. accidentally and  
irretrievably).

Scenario 2: Wikipedia ceases to exist in its current form. Its  
content is hosted elsewhere, but no link exists from the former  
location of the history page to the new location.

In either of those scenarios (and there's lots of other  
possibilities), the attribution ceases to be meaningful or useful.

In my opinion, attribution of all authors is preferable, and  
technically achievable.* Where that is not possible, e.g. due to  
space restrictions, then naming the key N authors is acceptable (and  
it should also be technically achievable to provide that abbreviated  
list). Including "Wikipedia" in the attribution is very reasonable,  
but not as the sole word. Providing a single URL only, which may stop  
working in the future, is not acceptable (although it would be  
acceptable as an accompaniment).

Mike

* If you don't want this cluttering up the footer, then simply have  
an "Authors" tab along the lines of the existing history tab. Or some  
sort of "Reuse this page" link with reuse instructions/guidelines on  
it, along the lines of "Cite this page"

On 21 Jan 2009, at 07:51, George Herbert wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>>> CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model
>>> is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use
>>> attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4 
>>> (c)(i)
>>> and 4(c)(iii).
>>
>>  4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
>> is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
>> attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is   
>> through
>> 4(c)(i).
>
>
> How is the foundation not distributing the (independently authored)  
> work?
>
> Attribution methods are first controlled by 4(c) - specifically "  
> reasonable
> to the medium or means You are utilizing".
>
> If Mike believes that a URL to the page history for pages with 6 or  
> more
> authors is acceptable under the terms of the license, and the Creative
> Commons' staff attorney so agrees, then I believe that they have just
> defined "reasonable to the medium or means we are utilizing" in  
> minimum
> legal terms, at least.  If you feel that it's morally repugnant  
> somehow then
> we can talk, of course, but I believe that this is both reasonable  
> and on
> first glance close to the optimum balance of practical (in the  
> sense of, can
> be consistently and legally followed) and ethical (in the sense of,  
> keeping
> people's credits as closely associated as we can).
>
>
> Again lets go through that section you have two things you can  
> attribute to:
>>
>> "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if  
>> supplied"
>>
>> However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half:
>>
>> "if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or
>> parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for
>> attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice,
>> terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party
>> or parties;"
>>
>> So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part
>> of the clause but trying to define say
>> "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&action=history"  
>> as an
>> Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the
>> paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party.
>>
>> Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it
>> still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from
>> time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third
>> parties.
>
>
> If we get common agreement with the CC's attorney and the populace  
> as a
> whole that CC-BY-SA-3.0 means (for wikis with 6+ contributors) what  
> we say
> it does, then it doesn't prevent any import or have any issue with  
> deleting
> things.
>
> If we delete a contribution, from the page text and page history,  
> then that
> text is not part of the page that's being served up and to which  
> the license
> applies.  Legally, CC-BY-SA-3.0 could be fought over by me going in  
> and
> taking all your contributions to a page and paraphrasing them, then  
> taking
> you out of the "authors list" as you didn't write any text still  
> appearing
> on the page.  We take a more liberal view- if you contributed,  
> you're in the
> history.  There are exceptions - we do delete revisions in  
> extremis.  But in
> general, not one word you wrote can still be in a current article  
> and you
> still show up and get credit now.  In some cases your ideas may  
> still be
> present, in some cases they have all been removed, but you still  
> get credit
> except for rare and narrow circumstances.
>
>
> -- 
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l