Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
or other page that contains the authorship
information of the articles you are re-using.
>>> For offline copies, that
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >> a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
> >> or other page that contains the authorship
> >> information of the articles you are re-using.
> >>
> > For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at al
2009/3/16 Ray Saintonge :
> So, if I want to give to give a mug with an erotic description of the
> Kama Sutra to my girl friend, I also need to give her this list of
> authors. Are there really people here who would be so law-abiding that
> they would threaten their love-life with that kind of an
2009/3/16 David Gerard :
> You have failed to establish how that makes any difference - it
> doesn't. The reason for it being there makes no difference as to
> whether people know what a URL is when they see it in print.
Interesting claim I'm not aware of any testing.
If we limit ourselves to in
2009/3/16 Andre Engels :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Indeed. The claim is meaningless and querulous noise. Printed objects
>> commonly have a URL on them these days. Listing a source or history
>> short URL would do the job it's intended to.
> True, but those are no
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Michael Snow :
>> Anthony wrote:
>
>>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all.
>
>> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in
>> an offline context? I've made this point before
2009/3/16 Michael Snow :
> Anthony wrote:
>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all.
> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in
> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not
> suddenly become devoid of meaning just bec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>> 2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
>>>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to
>> produce a version of the history on their servers or more
>> legally more solid inclu
Anthony wrote:
>> a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
>> or other page that contains the authorship
>> information of the articles you are re-using.
>>
> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all.
>
Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attr
geni wrote:
> 2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid
include a sheet of paper with a com
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > a) a link
> > (URL) to the article or articles you are re-using,
> As I have said on a few occasions now in a few
> threads, this is of course no attribution at all.
>
Unfortunately, 4 out of 5 people disagr
2009/3/15 geni :
> Wikimedia is not a party to the license therefor it's FAQ is of no
> relevance. The answer again goes to the license text. "You must...keep
> intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide ,reasonable to
> the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Origina
2009/3/15 David Gerard :
> Would this mean the vicious lunatic arsehole contributor (note I don't
> say "hypothetical" there, there are quite enough real-world examples
> of unbalanced nutters out to nail us on anything) who takes the
> mug-maker to court would win, or lose? To what extent? If the
2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
>>> version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid
>>> include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the
2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
> This would still give the wrong data if the page has been moved to
> [[Xenu (Scientology)]] and the [[Xenu (disambiguation)]] is moved to
> [[Xenu]], which isn't a totally unreasonable outcome.
> You'd have to use something like:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/authors/46634
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
>> version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid
>> include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug.
>
> It's hard to know who's
Дана Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:00:25 Thomas Dalton написа:
> maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). The options
> given, in order of simplest to most difficult are:
>
> No credit
> Credit to "Wikipedia" (or similar)
> Link to article
> Link to history
> link online, full list of aut
If you can link to the article you can link to the history. We already
have that mechanism. The problem I see is that people will link to a
specific version, and though that satisfies the licensing
requirements, and is necessary academically for tracing the actual
sources and authors, in most case
Erik Moeller wrote:
> a) a link
> (URL) to the article or articles you are re-using,
As I have said on a few occasions now in a few
threads, this is of course no attribution at all.
This needs sorely to be worded something like
a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
or other page th
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're talking
> about what forms of attribution are acceptable for people using our
> content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that attribution by URL is
> acceptable for people using the content under CC-BY-SA.
>
Well,
Hoi,
People have one reputation. This reputation is for the WMF with the nick
they are known by. Being on this committee is a poisoned chalice anyway
because they will never be able to satisfy everyone.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/14 geni
> 2009/3/13 Erik Moeller :
> > The licensing update comm
21 matches
Mail list logo
