[Foundation-l] Reuse policy

[Jiri Hofman]

You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the list 
of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees 
the work will stay free even when everything else collapses.

No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how rights 
of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are 
important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think 
otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA.

By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just 
providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the 
minimal rights of authors.

The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of the 
major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license as 
GFDL was chosen.

BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because they 
are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with it 
which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make 
things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated.

Jiri


On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote:
> Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware that
> we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
> 
> The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to
> and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. If
> it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host a
> stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to
> the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in
> which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns.
> You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of view -
> that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF is
> not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the
> potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the
> knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a
> serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to the
> medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.