[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
smolensk at eunet.yu
Fri Mar 20 05:41:23 UTC 2009
Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:04:49 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/3/19 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu>:
> > Erik, this is simply not true. The sentence in question reads [...] You
> > must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original
> > Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by
> > conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if
> > supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
> > practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor
> > specifies to be associated with the Work [...] So, the URI has to be
> > given *in addition* to the name of the author, not *instead* of it.
> No. You have to interpret the licensing of a work that is contributed
> to Wikipedia as a consequence of a series of decisions.
> 1) An author visits the Wikipedia website.
> 2) An author makes an edit and agrees to license it under the terms
> and conditions we specify.
> 3) By doing so, the author exercises the options that the CC-BY-SA
> license grants.
> 4) The CC-BY-SA license grants the author the option to not supply a
> name for purposes of attribution. The CC-BY-SA license grants the
> author the option to supply a URL. The terms and conditions require
> the author to exercise these options in that fashion.
> 5) The resultant work requires attribution by URL, but not by name.
Of course, if an author doesn't supply a name, then an URL is all that
remains. But most of our authors have not excercised this possibility: they
do supply their names, or pseudonyms.
> > This is also not completely true. It is true that Wikipedia mirrors often
> > cited authors in this way; but a number of books that were printed from
> > Wikipedia content have a list of all the authors.
> People have over-attributed out of caution given the known
> inconsistency between site terms and content license. The CC-BY-SA
> license resolves that inconsistency.
It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is that
their way of attribution is reasonable.
More information about the foundation-l