[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
geniice at gmail.com
Sat Mar 21 01:51:31 UTC 2009
2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> Well, I'm glad that we've cleared up that CC-BY-SA and link-back
> credit aren't irreconcilable after all.
Well I suppose that confirms you haven't really been paying attention.
> Now we're apparently moving on
> what a license means in practice? I'm not going to spend a lot of time
> on this argument: Of course a site-wide policy page linked to from
I assume you are trying to claim that wikipedia:copyrights is some
kind of TOS equiv.
Now that argument is flawed on a number of grounds but I think I'll
take the easy option. Where is the link of the following pages:
> even a literal and unreasonably narrow focus on the GFDL doesn't
> support rigorous author attribution:
> 1) Authors contributed acknowledging that they are licensing their
> edits under the GFDL;
> 2) The GFDL has an "at least five principal authors" requirement to
> give credit on the page title;
> 3) Wikipedia does not give credit on the page title;
Strangely there is no requirement that the history and the title page
not be the same thing.
> 4) The act of repeatedly contributing to Wikipedia under the GFDL can
> be argued to constitute the release from attribution which the GFDL
> allows for.
Please provide the section you think allows for it.
> The change tracking history section has nothing to do with
> attribution, as I've noted before. That's evident because the GFDL
> explicitly places reasonable limitations on the extent of author
> credit, to prevent the kinds of excessive bylines that we've been
> talking about.
Questionable. The GFDL is quite happy to see the title page extend
over several pages.
>It's also evident because a GFDL document can be
> created without a page history while still giving author credit.
However it cannot be modified without creating a history and that
history is required to include "new authors" among other things.
> the context of a wiki, change histories were clearly not designed for
> purposes of author credit, as they are an incredibly annoying tool
> when you actually want to use them for this purpose.
The exception being if you want to use them in the context of the GFDL
which has a similar bunch of annoying requirements for it's history
> I'm not making this argument:
Then please don't waste bandwidth with it.
>I am saying that we have established,
> through historical practice, policy and debate, that crediting
> re-users via link or URL is a minimally acceptable baseline.
False. Look up history merging sometime.
> and isn't acceptable is defined through more than the license. But the
> experience of contributing under a literal reading of the license
> alone doesn't support a claim to require stronger author attribution
> than what we're proposing, or even any author attribution at all.
Please state which section of the GFDL you are referring to here. I'm
fed up with playing guessing games.
More information about the foundation-l