[Foundation-l] Re-licensing

Mike Godwin mgodwin at wikimedia.org
Thu Jan 22 22:17:30 UTC 2009

Anthony writes:

>> 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.

Clearly because you have a legal right that distinguishes between  
online copies and offline copies?  Please explain. (Once again, I'm  
asking about legal rights because you claim to be basing your  
objections on your rights.)

>> 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.

How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?   
A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that  
recognize 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.

So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a  
book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot  
of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis  
for objecting to that form of attribution?

> 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.

Thank you for articulating an advantage to using URLs. The advantage  
of course applies both to online and offline copies.

>> 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?
> Common sense?

So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"? Are  
you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list