Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the
authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that
it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgements at their pages?
I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: "You have put a
pictur
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> > Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
> > right
> > to attribution.
>
> Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
>
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
htt
Anthony wrote:
>
> Now, personally, the way I read "reasonable to the medium or means You are
> utilitzing", I think it means "what is reasonably necessary to provide
> proper attribution", not "what is reasonably necessary to maximize reuse".
> Erik seems to be pushing for the latter interpretatio
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> > A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
>
> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
> right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
> rights that are
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for u
2009/1/22 geni :
> Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there
> since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about
> 50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I
> find it questionable that that would count as an improvement.
Anthony writes:
> A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not
Anthony writes:
> A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> >
> > Anthony writes:
> >
> >> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
> >> appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
> >> content, new
> >> Wikipedia content coul
> >> What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> >> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> >> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> >> legal rights.)
> >>
> >
> > Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
>
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller :
> E our attribution model, which is the
> result of many months of deliberation and consultation,
Evidences?
> "However, we think that the notion that print-outs of massively
> collaborative works should carry author attribution over multiple
> pages, that spoken version
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Robert Rohde :
>> It is now 11 weeks later. Any idea when we might see the survey
>> results released?
>
> I've sent the survey team a first set of priority questions for
> analysis. I haven't received an ETA yet, but I will report
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely.
And it will be... in the edit summary for the import which is in turn
referenced either directly or indirectly in the attribution.
The critical difference is that unlike your average W
2009/1/22 Robert Rohde :
> It is now 11 weeks later. Any idea when we might see the survey
> results released?
I've sent the survey team a first set of priority questions for
analysis. I haven't received an ETA yet, but I will report results as
soon as they become available, and I hope it's a mat
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> We're wrapping up the survey in most languages today. According to
> statistics which I have not validated, we have received more than
> 115,000 questionnaires. I'm very pleased by this high response rate,
> which bodes well for future surveys
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
>> If we assert a default "sense of the community" that the URL is reasonable,
>> and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy
>> readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect
>> any author's rights or property?
>
> Eith
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/23 George Herbert :
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> >> > allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
> >> > listed
> >>
> >> I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-i
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please
> explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how
> would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the
> impression that
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:58:31 -0800
> From: Mike Godwin
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <55aa3395-ec88-4ec2-8d36-efda1967a...@wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> geni writes:
>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
> > the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
> > is in fact reasonable.
>
> I know the human-readable summary of the license says t
2009/1/23 George Herbert :
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
>> > allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
>> > listed
>>
>> I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's
>> opt-out if probably won't make things muc
Mike Godwin wrote:
> geni writes:
>
>
>> In any case vagueness has it's uses since any attempt to try and
>> define everything will tend to result in the license either failing
>> or behaving in a very unhelpful manner under certain conditions.
>>
>
> I like to think Kurt Gödel had some im
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> > allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
> > listed
>
> I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's
> opt-out if probably won't make things much easier.
>
Why?
If we assert a de
Sam Johnston wrote:
> You're right, which is another great reason *not* to link to the history
> page URLs (which are as ugly as sin) but to the article directly (which is
> *significantly* more useful for the reusers' users). While I find it very
> hard to believe Wikipedia will cease to exist, t
2009/1/22 Chad :
> The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
> the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
> is in fact reasonable.
I know the human-readable summary of the license says that, but when I
looked I couldn't find anything in the license pro
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entir
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> For example, if WMF decides that a guaranteed by-name attribution is
> not reasonable, scalable, and detrimental to the goals of WMF, it can
> responsibly tell people that. People who have made past edits could be
> given the option to have _those_ edits always attributed by
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for u
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski :
>
>> I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example, everyone
>> who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are given,
>> but not the other way around.
>>
>
> That's evidently not true. Many people in
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Nathan wrote:
> It's by no means guaranteed that if we include "
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dentistry&curid=8005&action=history
> "
> in a printed book in 2009 it will still be accessible in 2019.
>
You're right, which is another great reason *
geni writes:
> In any case vagueness has it's uses since any attempt to try and
> define everything will tend to result in the license either failing
> or behaving in a very unhelpful manner under certain conditions.
I like to think Kurt Gödel had some important observations in this
regard.
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
> listed
I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's
opt-out if probably won't make things much easier.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@list
geni writes:
>> (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier
>> for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
>
> Nope. The "to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories
> is acceptable if there are more than five authors." bit will mean that
2009/1/22 Michael Snow :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.
>>
> Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.
How do you deal with every possible situation in a way that makes
sense without adding length? Unless you want to go for something
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
>
> Anthony writes:
>
>> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
>> appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
>> content, new
>> Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
>> content couldn't be
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>>> So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
>>> an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
>>> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
>>> your concern in terms o
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
>
>> Chad writes:
>>
>>> I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings
>>> about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the
>>> blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license
>>> with
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
>
> Chad writes:
>
>> I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings
>> about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the
>> blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license
>> with highly debatable terms.
>
> Without d
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has
> its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here,
> I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness
> or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I'
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin :
> (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier
> for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
Nope. The "to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories
is acceptable if there are more than five authors." bit will mean t
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth :
>> Therein lies the problem with using terms like "reasonable" in a legal
>> document. It's a subjective term, and there are plenty of definitions
>> that are going to work for some people and not others. Arguing
Nathan wrote:
> I understand Milos' concern, actually, and this is the most reasonable
> objection to a URL link for attribution purposes that has been raised so
> far. It is true that the Internet is by its nature impermanent, evolving
> both in content and in structure. It's by no means guarantee
Chad writes:
> I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings
> about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the
> blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license
> with highly debatable terms.
Without defending the particulars of CC's ph
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>> "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
>>> attribution gone mad
>> A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
>> I think it makes an excellent point about h
Anthony writes:
>> So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
>> an offline copy isn't?
>
>
> Online when there's an offline copy clearly isn't okay.
Clearly because you have a legal right that distinguishes between
online copies and offline copies? Please explain.
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> Yes, and it's quite obvious that if no author name but a URL is
> supplied, then under 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii), a re-user would have to
> attribute only that URL.
Irrelevant. Most wikipedians do not have usernames that are valid URLs
>After all, the license clearly limits
2009/1/22 Florence Devouard :
> 5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French
> chapter do not benefit the projects.
> Please find here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France
> the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Comm
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
>> an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
>> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
>> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violati
Anthony writes:
> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
> appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
> content, new
> Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
> content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
Y
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're trying to say, then. It
>> sounded like you were talking about having one document (web, print,
>> whatever medium) point to another, something that might be done for
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/1/22 geni :
>>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>>> the medium or means"?
>
>> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
>
> I agree that at least the varied interpretations
2009/1/21 geni :
> So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your
> approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c)
>
> "You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
> provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"
>
> That i
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth :
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/1/22 geni :
>>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>>> the medium or means"?
>>
>> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
>> (It would be
2009/1/22 Chad :
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
>> left to laymen, not lawyers.
>>
>
> Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy
> phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attrib
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
> > an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> > here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> > your concern in term
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
> > part of
> > the Document.
>
> Even if it's on a different server?
>
I don't see why not. If you're talking about a different server and a
differe
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're trying to say, then. It
> sounded like you were talking about having one document (web, print,
> whatever medium) point to another, something that might be done for
> attribution or a variety of
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/1/22 geni :
>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>> the medium or means"?
> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable'
expressed in this
> So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
> an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> legal rights.)
Anthony writes:
> On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
> part of
> the Document.
Even if it's on a different server?
> For online copies, as I've said before, I don't see much problem
> with this.
> As I've said before, it's hard to draw the line as to what is
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 geni :
>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>> the medium or means"?
>
> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
> (It would be nice if we could agree it between us ra
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it
> allows
> > people who consider "the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" to
> actually
> > be detriments, to conti
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/1/22 geni :
>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>> the medium or means"?
>
> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
> (It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having
> to go to c
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in "the section
> > entitled
> > History", and it clearly states that a "section "Entitled XYZ" means
> > a named
> > subunit of the Document..."
>
> So is current Wikipedia practice consiste
2009/1/22 geni :
> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
> the medium or means"?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
(It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having
to go to court over it...)
___
I understand Milos' concern, actually, and this is the most reasonable
objection to a URL link for attribution purposes that has been raised so
far. It is true that the Internet is by its nature impermanent, evolving
both in content and in structure. It's by no means guaranteed that if we
include "
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> This is a constructive and useful proposal, thank you.
>
> I agree with Milos when he states in another thread that we need to
> think further about a solution that is satisfactory to a greater
> number of people, at least when it comes to standardizing attribution
> requ
> I agree with Milos when he states in another thread that we need to
> think further about a solution that is satisfactory to a greater
> number of people, at least when it comes to standardizing attribution
> requirements with effective application to all past edits ever made.
Indeed. Perhaps ou
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows
> people who consider "the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" to actually
> be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from
> incorporating
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski :
> Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the
> principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL
> is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the
> proposed list of five authors
Anthony writes:
> Well, first off, I wasn't referring to free licenses, I was
> referring to
> rights.
This is a telling admission. I respect anyone's desire to have rights
over the copyrighted material he or she generates. That's a function
of traditional copyright law and it informs the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Anthony :
> > So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that "The
> GFDL
> > 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just
> in
> > a slightly more legal way." What do you mean by this?
>
> W
2009/1/22 Anthony :
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
>> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
>> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
>> preferred
> Because radio broadcasts have far shorter credit lists. Yeah to an
> extent you can do it with CDs but for 45s that is right out. However
> the license itself specifies "Reasonable to the medium or means" so
> this does not present a problem.
Surely you couldn't fit a read out version of [[Franc
2009/1/22 Anthony :
> So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that "The GFDL
> 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in
> a slightly more legal way." What do you mean by this?
What I mean is that if we consider the proposal to be legal und
On Thursday 22 January 2009 20:55:21 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski :
> > On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> > Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by
> >> > mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
>> Now read that article outloud and record it. Reasonable to the medium
>> or means in this case however lets people follow the common practice
>> of putting the credit on the record sleeve /CD jewel case.
>
> "Reasonable" doesn't have to mean "common practice".
It doesn
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Anthony :
> > What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the
> history
> > tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright
> > statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the "real name"
> pre
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> > Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning
>> > the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at
>> > that URL is something that we may change at our
2009/1/22 Anthony :
> What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the history
> tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright
> statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the "real name" preference,
> and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning
> > the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at
> > that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example,
> > this may
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Anthony :
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller
> wrote:
> >
> >> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
> >> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
> >> preferences to the l
> Now read that article outloud and record it. Reasonable to the medium
> or means in this case however lets people follow the common practice
> of putting the credit on the record sleeve /CD jewel case.
"Reasonable" doesn't have to mean "common practice". How about reading
out the names at the en
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> * If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
>>> appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
>>> solution to allow pointing from less advanced
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> * If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
>> appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
>> solution to allow pointing from less advanced medium to more advanced
>> medium.
>>
>
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/1/22 geni :
>> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
>>> That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
>>> giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
>>> long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they
>>> reco
2009/1/22 Anthony :
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
>> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
>> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
>> preferred
Milos Rancic wrote:
> * If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
> appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
> solution to allow pointing from less advanced medium to more advanced
> medium.
>
Independent of the relicensing debate, I don't understand t
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> This is a request for comment. I've posted a draft proposal for the
> license update here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
>
> It is not intended to be final, but I hope we can arrive at a final
> version by February 1.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
> preferred implementation would look
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski :
> > I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example,
> everyone
> > who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are
> given,
> > but not the other way around.
>
> That's evide
2009/1/22 geni :
> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
>> That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
>> giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
>> long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they
>> recognize that there is an additional
> Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the
> principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL
> is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the
> proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five;
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
> giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
> long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they
> recognize that there is an additional good (ease of re-use)
On Thursday 22 January 2009 00:20:14 Erik Moeller wrote:
> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
> preferred implementation would loo
2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski :
> I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example, everyone
> who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are given,
> but not the other way around.
That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
giving all na
There is an analogous project. The thousands of contributors of
quotations exemplifying use to the Oxford English Dictionary have
their names listed, though not with the items they sent. the
principal ones are listed separately, but even those who sent in a
single quotation are in a list. I know p
If you consider Norwegian nynorsk to be a dialect, you have your facts
wrong. It is one of two written forms of norwegian, they have the same
legal standing.
Kjetil Lenes
Lars Aronsson skreiv:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>> It is nice that you oppose, there are reasons why it might be a
>>
2009/1/22 Sam Johnston :
> What value do they really think they will get from a 2pt credit
> with 5,000 other authors?
Don't underestimate the enjoyment of looking through the page of
credits at the back of a printed book and finding your name! People
like to be acknowledged, even if it doesn't se
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I understand that viewpoint and think it is reasonable. How about adding a
> checkbox to preferences, that says "allow attribution by URL"?
Insofar as this satisfies my personal preference on the matter, I say
that this is fine. If we added this
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
