[Foundation-l] Reuse policy

Brian Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
Mon Jun 15 20:02:09 UTC 2009

Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the
CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview:

That's all I have..

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jiri Hofman <hofmanj at aldebaran.cz> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list