[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
wikimail at inbox.org
Thu Jan 22 21:42:01 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> > On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
> > part of
> > the Document.
> Even if it's on a different server?
I don't see why not. If you're talking about a different server and a
different domain name, run by a different company, I think you could argue
the difference is de minimis, so long as the other server is pretty much
> > For online copies, as I've said before, I don't see much problem
> > with this.
> > As I've said before, it's hard to draw the line as to what is part
> > of the
> > work and what is not part of the work, when it comes to online
> > sources. But
> > I don't think the same argument can be made for offline copies.
> So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
> an offline copy isn't?
Online when there's an offline copy clearly isn't okay. Online on a
different server, run by a different company. I'm not going to say it's
okay, but I really don't see much difference.
> What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> legal rights.)
Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights. But the
distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click away, in the
other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing in a url,
and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.
Additionally, printed copies will almost surely last longer than the url
remains accessible. With online copies, the url can be updated if it moves,
or the page can be copied to the local server if the remote one goes down.
> My main concern is that CC-BY-SA will be deliberately misinterpreted
> > to not
> > require direct attribution - and the published draft of the RfC
> > confirms
> > that this concern is valid.
> So you think an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when
> the article is online is "direct"?
I think it's close enough to "direct" that I'm not interested in complaining
about it. Personally, I'd just include the attribution on the same server,
especially if someone complained.
But an online attribution on a
> separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not*
> "direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this distinction?
More information about the foundation-l