On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
> > each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?
>
> Because the copyright owners is often a very long list. The notice:
> "All text is available under the
> I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
> each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?
Because the copyright owners is often a very long list. The notice:
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License. (See Copyrights for
On 11 Jan 2009, at 21:46, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
> different purposes:
>
> * author credit on the title page;
> * author copyright in the copyright notices;
> * author names for tracking modifications in the history section.
> .
2009/1/9 Erik Moeller :
>
> My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the
> context of a wiki is as follows:
>
> * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work;
> * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms
> of use of the wiki, made availab
2009/1/12 Anthony :
> It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your
> weasel-word of "direct" is supposed to mean).
The GFDL requires crediting principal authors, and it requires change
tracking. Given the obvious intent of the principal authors clause to
limit inflating bylin
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Anthony :
> > That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you
> > haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the
> history
> > section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors.
>
> It d
2009/1/12 Anthony :
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
>> contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
>> circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
>> is consistent with the at
2009/1/12 Anthony :
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
>> contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
>> circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
>> is consistent with the at
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
> contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
> circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
> is consistent with the attribution requirements of G
2009/1/11 Anthony :
> That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you
> haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the history
> section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors.
It does so, in the context of Wikipedia.org, because change tracking
and
2009/1/11 geni :
> The critical term is "reasonable to the medium or means" for mediawiki
> our current method of crediting is probably reasonable to the medium
> or means. For other applications different forms of crediting are
> required. Any 5 author stuff is completely irrelevant.
I never said
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> There is a legitimate
>> argument that, under a literal reading of the GFDL, any re-user _also_
>> has to include a full copy of the change history.
>
>
> The problem with that argument is
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Anthony :
> > Granted, including full change histories is overkill
>
> Thanks for acknowledging this.
>
> The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
> different purposes:
>
> * author credit on the title p
2009/1/11 geni :
> 2009/1/11 Thomas Dalton :
>> I don't understand, which terms don't appear and how is that relevant?
>> CC-BY-SA allows authors to specify how they wish to be attributed, so
>> we can (at least try to) choose a way that ought to be acceptable to
>> people that have accepted the GF
2009/1/11 Thomas Dalton :
> I don't understand, which terms don't appear and how is that relevant?
> CC-BY-SA allows authors to specify how they wish to be attributed, so
> we can (at least try to) choose a way that ought to be acceptable to
> people that have accepted the GFDL.
They can specify b
2009/1/11 geni :
> 2009/1/11 Erik Moeller :
>> What we are left with, then, is to come up with attribution guidelines
>> in the context of CC-BY-SA which are consistent with reasonable
>> expectations and established practices for author credit per the GFDL.
>
> False. Read the CC-BY-SA again. Neit
2009/1/11 Erik Moeller :
> What we are left with, then, is to come up with attribution guidelines
> in the context of CC-BY-SA which are consistent with reasonable
> expectations and established practices for author credit per the GFDL.
False. Read the CC-BY-SA again. Neither of those terms appear
2009/1/11 Anthony :
> Granted, including full change histories is overkill
Thanks for acknowledging this.
The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
different purposes:
* author credit on the title page;
* author copyright in the copyright notices;
* author names for t
2009/1/11 Ray Saintonge :
> With that comment you would certainly win a bobblehead of Richard
> Stallman if such a thing were available. This could be awarded for a
> single-minded devotion to whatever topic is at hand to an extent where
> all shmoos and tribbles march past unnoticed.
>
> Sam, Pho
Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> A prize for best cross-media reuse of content - I love it. I will
>> contribute to the prize pool one large gnu, and one piece of similarly
>> huggable CC swag, signed by free-content luminaries To Be Named.
>> --SJ
> H
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> A prize for best cross-media reuse of content - I love it. I will
> contribute to the prize pool one large gnu, and one piece of similarly
> huggable CC swag, signed by free-content luminaries To Be Named.
> --SJ
>
How does this help in cr
A prize for best cross-media reuse of content - I love it. I will
contribute to the prize pool one large gnu, and one piece of similarly
huggable CC swag, signed by free-content luminaries To Be Named.
--SJ
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, g
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
>>> > distributing my copyrighted content in a
2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
>> possible and linking to the version history where that would be
>> onerous) is completely consistent with
>> 1) established practices on Wikipedia;
>> 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> >> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard
> wrote:
> >> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> >> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *o
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
>> my
>> >> > content, and you won'
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
> my
> >> > content, and you won't hear from me on the lice
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
>> > content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
>> you
>> > choose to read my blog or the bl
2009/1/10 geni :
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
>>
>> The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
>> Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
>> arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
>> where I am the last au
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
> > content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
> you
> > choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Inte
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
> content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you
> choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review
> Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later,"
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you
> do
> not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
> not shared by all, for from it.
But I own the copyright on the content I contr
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > Title 17, Section 407.
>
> Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
> sure we haven't.
It's not required unless the work is published anyway.
___
foundat
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/l
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can
> be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
>
> That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have
> to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
Hoi,
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it. The reason why the GFDL needs to be replaced
is because we want to be better able to share. At that the GFDL
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
>> > distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
>> > expressly provided under any
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
> > distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
> > expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
>
> Apart from the "expressly
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
> possible and linking to the version history where that would be
> onerous) is completely consistent with
> 1) established practices on Wikipedia;
> 2) the ethics and spirit
On Saturday 10 January 2009 10:02:11 Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
> > is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
> > is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the per
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
> is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
> is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person
> that made the last edit or is it everyone before (ie. are au
Anthony wrote:
> My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
> distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
> expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition
of how Wikipedia and ot
geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> It isn't clear what it means.
>> There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
>> attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
>
> The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in
> a section name and one
Erik Moeller wrote:
> The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
> possible and linking to the version history where that would be
> onerous) is completely consistent with
> 1) established practices on Wikipedia;
> 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation Lic
2009/1/9 Anthony :
> I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather
> not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
> point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
You are completely free to oppose the switch because you find the
license
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> >
> > The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
> > Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're
> even
> > arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be f
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two
> > copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the
> > copyright office.
>
> No such requirement exists under US law.
Title 17, S
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two
> copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the
> copyright office.
No such requirement exists under US law.
--
geni
___
foundation-
2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
> Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
> arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
> where I am the last author or for historical re
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller :
> >> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton :
> >>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
> >>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requir
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/9 Anthony :
> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
> my
> > copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
> any
> > license I have granted them.
>
> I doubt it. You are probably
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
> >> what was you complaint about?
> >
> >
> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
> my
> > copyrighted content in a manner other than
geni wrote:
> 2009/1/9 Robert Rohde :
>> As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
>> better position to understand what the license requires than most
>> reusers.
>
> The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
> understand. The WMF cannot provide lega
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller :
>> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton :
>>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
>>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
>>> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton :
>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
>> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
>> whether Original Author is, in the context o
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton :
> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
> whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest
> edi
I think this is probably true.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Chad wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski
> wrote:
> >
> >> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
> dump
> >>>
> >>> of
Chad wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>> That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
>>>
>>> of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
>>>
>>> http://en.wi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, geni wrote:
...
> Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution
> should be reasonable "reasonable to the medium or means". Quite apart
> from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system
> the range of medium means that th
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton :
> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
> what was you complaint about?
Being querulous?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.o
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> "Wikipedia" would only satisfy the license if the author specifically
>> said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to
>> designate "Wikipedia" or anything else to rec
2009/1/9 Anthony :
> My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
> copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
> license I have granted them.
I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL
with regards to what t
>> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
>> what was you complaint about?
>
>
> My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
> copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
> license I have granted them.
Su
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dal...@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Now read the version in GF
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
> dump
> > of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to
> create.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
>
>
Ha?
-- White Cat
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last
> > name
> > from all Wikimedia projects.
>
> So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last
> name? I had no i
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just "sweat of the
> brow" because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection.
> It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different
> jurisdiction.
Other laws do have similar provisi
Hoi,
That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just "sweat of the
brow" because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection.
It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different
jurisdiction.
Thanks,
Gerard
2009/1/9 Nikola Smolenski
> Gerard Me
And simplistic arguments are not convincing. If you would like to explore
the space with me, you'll have to try more than one sentence at a time.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
> of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
Huge effort is not copyrightable.
__
Hoi,
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
It is for this reason easy to argue that the WMF has the copyright on the
collection. Given that it is a composite of separately copyrighted mat
Brian wrote:
> Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
> dumps?
Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one
owns the copyright on them.
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/8 Brian :
>>> I was under the
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> > I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
> > sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
> > sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since any advice we give ought
> > t
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
> sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
> sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since any advice we give ought
> to be at a level that is clearly black and white, and not gray.
2009/1/9 Robert Rohde :
> As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
> better position to understand what the license requires than most
> reusers.
The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
understand. The WMF cannot provide legal advice and in that ca
Brian wrote:
> And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
> dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
> what everyone ignores.
>
Not to dismiss the importance of dumps, certainly, but the reference to
"data" reflects an implicit lim
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
> > >>
> > >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
>> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
>> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
>> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
>> whether to support
2009/1/8 geni :
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
>> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
>> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
>> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
>> whether to support the vote. However the absen
Anthony writes:
> Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last
> name
> from all Wikimedia projects.
So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last
name? I had no idea you had licensed it under GFDL to begin with!
--Mike
_
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
>> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
>> >
>> >
>> > Because the WMF claims to have a license
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
> whether to support the vote. However the absence of any guidance
> a
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
> >>
> >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
> >
> >
> > Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
>
> Yes,
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>>
>> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
>
>
> Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
___
f
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>
> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu
> Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
what everyone ignores.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009
Anthony writes:
>> It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke
>> the
>> GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as
>> to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
>>
>
> I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunatel
2009/1/8 Mike Godwin :
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>> I guess if you leave it up to the editor to do it themselves, it could
>> work, although it would still require someone to go along after them
>> fixing the mess that would inevitably result from removing random
>> chunks from the middle of arti
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
>
> > No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
> > introduced in GFDL 1.3.
>
>
> Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
> edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia pr
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony writes:
>>>
>>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
>>> > have no
>>> > license to distribute
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
> introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a)
ban him in perpetuity from all Wikimedia pro
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the
> GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for
> automatic termination in the event that the licensed material is
> (inter alia) distributed in some way
Anthony writes:
>> I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke
>> the license...
>
>
> Reread section 9.
Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the
GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for
automatic termination in t
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> Anthony writes:
>>
>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
>> > have no
>> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
>> > the
>>
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> "Wikipedia" would only satisfy the license if the author specifically
> said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to
> designate "Wikipedia" or anything else to receive the attribution. I
> would expect the attribution req
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
> > have no
> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
> > the
> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those ri
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Err you realise that there is at present no GFDL 1.3 only content on
wikipedia (there is a very small amount on commons due a
misunderstanding)?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
Anthony writes:
> Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
> have no
> license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
> the
> GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over
> 30 days
> ago in an email to you).
It was uncl
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Brian wrote:
> The specific reason I would claim that the telephone directory case does not
> apply is that the dumps are in a machine readable format that is intended to
> be read by one, and only one, machine: MediaWiki. There must be another
> domain of applicabl
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
