[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Thu Jan 22 13:24:35 UTC 2009

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 January 2009 19:32:15 Erik Moeller wrote:
> > 2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu>:
> > > Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have
> to
> > > say that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient.
> As
> > > a Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will feel the same.
> >
> > That's probably true, Nikola. The proposed attribution language is
> > intended to balance the various positions (ranging from 'an URL should
> > always be fine' to 'names should always be given'), the established
> I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced.

I'd say the key to this whole relicensing debate is that the positions
shouldn't be "balanced".  It is my firm conviction that you ought not
violate some individuals' rights for the good of some other (larger) group
of individuals.  Thus, the arguments about how difficult and onerous it is
to give credit fall on deaf ears.  It doesn't matter how difficult it is to
credit people.  People have a right to be credited, and printing a URL in a
book or on a T-shirt or at the end of a movie doesn't cut it.  This is
especially true because *it's the Wikimedia Foundation's fault* that it's so
difficult to track authors in the first place.  I personally was arguing for
more care to be taken in this space and/or an *opt-in* move to a dual
licensing scheme (and adoption of the real name field) *over 4 years ago*
(yes Mike, I double-checked this one).  The fact that these concerns were
ignored for so long *is not the fault of the authors*.  Our rights should
not be violated or "balanced" away.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list