2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <[email protected]>: > 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 > to the new topic: Do site-wide terms of use matter when determining > 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 > every page has relevance when determining the terms of use/re-use. 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: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canale_artificiale http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanal http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hampshire_County,_West_Virginia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB_(%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaal_(waterweg) > But > 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. > In > 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 section. > 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. >What is > 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. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
