[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
geniice at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 21:42:53 UTC 2009
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> 2009/3/11 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
>> and moveing
>> article titles would result in some interesting legal situations.
> That's true for any approach that utilizes hyperlinks; there are
> probably technical strategies we can use to mitigate it.
Nope. Not as long as the deletion button continues to exist. The GFDL
was smart enough to pick that up which is why when it offers
computer-network locations as an option for distributing transparent
copies the burden is on the person doing the distribution to make sure
that the thing will remain accessible at the network location for at
least a year.
With attribution the situation is more interesting since given the
likely age of some new
encyclopedia wikians you would need to make sure the hyperlinks
continue to be active for at least 150 years (life+70 frequently
generates copyrights that long or longer).
>> The phrase "otherwise be attributed in the manner specified by the
>> uploader" is intensely bad because it allows people to specify
>> attribution via skywriting.
> CC-BY-SA itself places limitations on credit, but I've nevertheless
> qualified it with "reasonable".
CC-BY-SA does indeed place limits on how you can demand credit.
Problem is that your phase disabled the section in question. On the
basis that new encyclopedia wiki doesn't need the added problem of
trying to figure out the difference between "reasonable" and
"reasonable to the medium and means" scraping the whole section would
be a better approach rather than messing with something CC-BY-SA has
already delt with.
More information about the foundation-l