[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view

geni geniice at gmail.com
Sat Mar 21 12:42:38 UTC 2009

2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> 2009/3/20 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>> 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:
> Try the edit pages.

Doesn't help you. Even those that do mention their equiv of
wikipedia:copyrights don't mention it in a context where it could be a
be considered a TOS and not all do. Then of course we have commons
who's Commons:Licensing doesn't help you at all.

Seriously Erik it bad enough that you are not paying attention but
suggesting I wouldn't check your claim is somewhat insulting.

> There's no reason to assume that they are.

Actually there is see. Remember every wikipedian who has edited a page
has released a modified version of a GFDL document. I hope you are not
accusing them of violating copyright on a massive page

>The GFDL defines Title Page
> as the text "near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
> preceding the beginning of the body of the text". The interpretation
> that an arbitrarily titled link somewhere on the document (it used to
> be called "Older versions") to a difficult to navigate changelog
> exists to satisfy the author credit provisions of the GFDL (section
> 4.B, since you asked) is hardly more defensible than the
> interpretation that credit is given to the Wikipedia community ("From
> Wikipedia"), or that no credit is given.

Given that neither of those would be legal under the GFDL I don't
think you are helping your case.

>You're in woolly territory to
> begin with, which again re-affirms what I've been saying: we can
> identify, through past practices, community-created terms of re-use,
> the way that Wikipedia itself implements the GFDL, etc., a reasonable
> baseline. Providing credit by linking to the page is a reasonable
> baseline. And again, nowhere does a significantly greater expectation
> for credit reasonably arise.

The book version of the German wikipedia? The import export functions?

>>>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.
> Irrelevant.

Given that only the terms of the GFDL will allow wikipedia to switch
to CC-BY-SA declaring said terms to be Irrelevant is at best foolish.

>>>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.
> Re-parse "minimally acceptable baseline".

Seeing how we react to cut and paste moves I would suggest your
minimally acceptable baseline isn't.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list