geni wrote:
> 2009/3/20 David Gerard:
>
>> This is what I mean when I say this is not a game of Nomic, and the
>> law is squishy. Does anyone actually think they could stop someone
>> from doing this? (If so, you're too batshit crazy to be listened to in
>> this discussion.)
>>
> DMCA take
2009/3/20 David Gerard :
> This is what I mean when I say this is not a game of Nomic, and the
> law is squishy. Does anyone actually think they could stop someone
> from doing this? (If so, you're too batshit crazy to be listened to in
> this discussion.)
>
>
> - d.
DMCA take down notice. Ebay wi
2009/3/20 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of
>> books. The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so
>> far as to say "[...] et al." That's about as much as anyone could
>> reasonably expect, no ma
2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge :
> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of
> books. The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so
> far as to say "[...] et al." That's about as much as anyone could
> reasonably expect, no matter what the licence says.
Th
On 20 Mar 2009, at 17:03, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>>
>>> Is this problem really exclusive to online references? I'd
>>> guess there is plenitude of author references to "[...] et
>>> al." (or none at all) out there that cannot
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>
>> Is this problem really exclusive to online references? I'd
>> guess there is plenitude of author references to "[...] et
>> al." (or none at all) out there that cannot be resolved
>> without access to a catalog or the so
On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> The issue, from my point of view*, is that they do "suddenly become
>> devoid of meaning" as soon as those links stop working. This can
>> happen for a number of reasons, including article moves, deletions,
>> and ( forbid
Michael Peel wrote:
>> 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 because you're using a medium
>> where you can't follow a hyperlink. I could just as soo
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> Indeed, I think both of you should just leave this thread alone.
Well, since you mention me by name I feel I ought to be able to defend
myself. If you want to deny me this right of reply by moderating me, so be
it. I'll be brief.
Ant
On 16 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Michael Snow wrote:
> 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 because you're using a medium
> where you can't follow a hyperli
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>> 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
On 3/16/09, Chad wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
>>
>>> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
>>
>>
>> Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
>
>> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
>
>
> Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsub
1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
From: Anthony
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:49:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11
Anthony,
If you don't mind, let's be specific.
Which edits are yours? (Were you User:Anthony?)
Who, if anyone, do you believe is presently infringing your rights
such that you feel corrective action is necessary to satisfy your
expectations as an author? What action do you want to see taken?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to
> license your contributions under 1.2 or any later version.
Any later version published by the FSF.
> Therefore if the Foundation moves to 1.3, the license trans
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:33:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that
>> if
>> > someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it
>> under
>> > a license that doesn't
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> > I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that
> if
> > someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it
> under
> > a license that doesn't yet exist.
>
> Yes, becaus
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> It doesn't say "or later". It says "or [...] later [...]".
And that is where I bid you "farewell".
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Anthony wrote:
> It allows an MMC Site (presumably, the WMF) to republish the work under
> CC-BY-SA.
Sorry, I forgot to add "on the same site". I shouldn't try to abbreviate -
it says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the
site unde
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if
> someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under
> a license that doesn't yet exist.
Yes, because Eben Moglen (who would have cleared the "or later"
provision) knows s
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
> later".
> >> Try
> >> > again.
> >>
> >> The edit page ha
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
>> Try
>> > again.
>>
>> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
>> claiming that it di
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
> later".
> >> Try
> >> > again.
>
> >> The edit page has sai
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
>> Try
>> > again.
>> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
>> claiming that it didn'
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
> Try
> > again.
>
> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
> claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later". Try
> again.
The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when?
___
found
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard
> wrote:
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC b
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.
But wh
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
>> wrote:
>> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
>> > It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
> wrote:
>
> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
>
> > It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that
> matter.
>
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
> It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that matter.
No, but you did with the "or later." Stop FUDding.
- d.
__
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> > In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what
> attribution
> > means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors.
> That
> > I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fail
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution
> means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors. That
> I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain
> situations (e.g. where that list is just a
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> 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 arti
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
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
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,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Language will not bind contributors who understand they
> are protected by the copyleft provisions of both GFDL and
> CC-BY-SA. That just will not happen.
>
> In the real world much of the terms of use will be just so
> much arm-waving, let us be realistic.
>
This
2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I think the practice of using summary lines for attribution
> has from the start been viewed as a temporary solution,
> only to be used until we figure out a better way to handle
> content such as translations from other language projects.
>
> I think if we do go
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother.
>>
>> I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly,
>> that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service
>> on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into
>> somethin
2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother.
>
> I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly,
> that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service
> on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into
> something like http://wmattr/342y6 or the
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>
>> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does
>> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct
>> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I
>> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innova
geni wrote:
> 2009/3/14 David Gerard :
>
>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with
>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel
>> guides, etc.
>>
> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
> version of the his
2009/3/14 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/14 geni :
>> 2009/3/14 David Gerard :
>>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with
>>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel
>>> guides, etc.
>> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to prod
2009/3/14 geni :
> 2009/3/14 David Gerard :
>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with
>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel
>> guides, etc.
> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
> version of the history o
2009/3/14 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does
>> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct
>> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I
>> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innova
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does
> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct
> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I
> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative
> ways of formatting that i
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> I think you fail at logic.
>
> You could not have two mirrors linking to each others with
> neither listing the authors, if the first one to mirror was
> compliant with the CC-BY-SA. Posit the first mirror complied with
> and required compliance of that license. It
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
> language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
> some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
> meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any bugs in thi
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> 3. If the intent is to maintain a stipulation that conforming
>> to the license can be done by satisfying a significantly
>> lower threshold than supplying the authors, but since we
>> are doing that "more onerous route", every other s
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> 3. If the intent is to maintain a stipulation that conforming
>> to the license can be done by satisfying a significantly
>> lower threshold than supplying the authors, but since we
>> are doing that "more onerous route", every other s
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/13 Erik Moeller :
>
>> The point of the provision is to ensure that attribution by link
>> always happens by linking to a copy that actually gives authorship
>> information.
>>
>
> It is vitally important that that be the case, otherwise you could
> have two mi
2009/3/13 Anthony :
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> I've reworded it slightly:
>> "b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable
>> online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the
>> license, and which provides credit to the authors in
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I've reworded it slightly:
> "b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable
> online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the
> license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner
> equivalent to t
2009/3/13 Erik Moeller :
> The point of the provision is to ensure that attribution by link
> always happens by linking to a copy that actually gives authorship
> information.
It is vitally important that that be the case, otherwise you could
have two mirrors each linking to each other with neithe
2009/3/11 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> 3. If the intent is to maintain a stipulation that conforming
> to the license can be done by satisfying a significantly
> lower threshold than supplying the authors, but since we
> are doing that "more onerous route", every other sad site
> should do the same; w
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 geni :
> > Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Nope. Not as long as the deletion button continues to exist.
>
> We already make deletion logs visible to everyone; is there any reason
> why we shouldn't do the same with contribution histories other than
> the occasional case where they inc
Brian wrote:
> I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
> URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
> code:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
>
> But the proposed attribution guideline says absolutely nothing about
> what th
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 Bence Damokos :
>
>> From an attribution point of view, the definition of "full list of authors"
>> that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
>> Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
>> contributions -
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>
>> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>>
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
>
>
The language of t
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>> b) a link to an
>>> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
>>> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
>>>
>> What is the purpose of the wording "and
>
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>>> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
>>> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
>>> you would need to do so.
>
>> Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
>> requireme
2009/3/11 geni :
>> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
>> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
>> you would need to do so.
> Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
> requirement?
No; the attribution terms me
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
Is provideing credit reasonable
2009/3/11 geni :
> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
you would need to do so.
> and moveing
> article titles would result in some interesting leg
2009/3/11 Bence Damokos :
> From an attribution point of view, the definition of "full list of authors"
> that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
> Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
> contributions - you wouldn't say he is the auth
2009/3/11 Ryan Kaldari :
>> "either by, at your choice, including"
>
> "at your choice" is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
> meaning without the extra clause.
Removed it from the draft.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimedia
2009/3/10 Sage Ross :
> This is unclear. "but must otherwise" can be read to apply only to
> rich media that are 5+ collaborations and for which a reuser chooses
> not to use the above "same fashion" author list. But I assume
> "attributed in the manner specified by the uploader" ought to apply
>
2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> b) a link to an
>> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
>> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
>
> What is the purpose of the wording "and
> includes a list a list of all authors," ?
b) in
> "either by, at your choice, including"
"at your choice" is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
meaning without the extra clause.
Ryan Kaldari
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
> language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
> some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
> meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any bugs i
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
> language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
> some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
> meantime, I'd appreciate it if
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Brian wrote:
> I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
> URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
> code:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
>
> But the proposed attribution guideline says
That is not the kind of attribution that I have in mind, either. I think
what we need are guidelines as to what links should or should not be saying,
but we need to make it so that people can style it in a manner appropriate
for the work they are using it in.
- Chris
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:27
If there are no specifics instructions as to what a link is except
that it contains the correct url then I can argue that this is
sufficient attribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some Article" rel="nofollow">source
This is not the kind of attribution I have in mind.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1
Whilst I concur that we need to address more of the specifics, I would
disagree that the proposal should incorporate rigidity about the link text
itself. There are various contexts which this will potentially accompany,
and I cannot imagine that there is a one-size-fits-all link title.
- Chris
On
I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
But the proposed attribution guideline says absolutely nothing about
what the link label should be, and
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Rich media (images, sound,
> video, etc.) that are the result of substantive collaborations between
> at least five people can be credited in the same fashion, but must
> otherwise be attributed in the manner specified by the uploader.
Thi
Erik Moeller wrote:
> b) a link to an
> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
What is the purpose of the wording "and
includes a list a list of all authors," ?
Doesn't that preclude people from applying
the sa
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
