This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as reasonable with current tech:
> Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the > redirect page would need to be fixed..) With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter when it existed in any language version: Wikipedia For digital images you can embed license info in the exif. For scanned images (for example, of a digital image printed onto a t-shirt) there are lots of image similarity algorithms. It just needs to say (Wikipedia) and you can find the author. I don't know about a CC-BY-SA, but can't we try to find a license that says something reasonable for a change? On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote: > > So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So > > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If > > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the > > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit > > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary > > problem). > > Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only. > > A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be > attributed to them in a flexible manner. > > I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on every > bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would consider > flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is not > explicitly listed, fair attribution to them. > > I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against a > hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a > Uniform Resource Locator anyway? "It specifies where an identified > resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia) > > We can do that without including all the http:// bits. > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/2/3 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: >> > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is? >> >> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves >> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work," >> >> Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically >> thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have >> to include the required credit in a printed form with the book. >> >> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So >> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If >> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the >> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit >> tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary >> problem). >> >> > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full >> > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a >> > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content >> > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to >> make >> > it easier. >> >> Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work >> "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"? >> >> > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more >> practical >> > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL? >> >> Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the >> situation. >> >> -- >> geni >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
