On 10/23/13 11:10 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu <[email protected]> wrote:
Same argument in
different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is
also
no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.
If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.
Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be
credited".
Especially since it's difficult to do that accurately using a
git-blame-style method. We can't use only count text that's persisted
into the final version (in the style of WikiTrust's attribution),
because if author A contributes a paragraph, and later editors
completely rework the paragraph for wording, clarity, order, etc. to the
extent that none of the original words remain verbatim, the final result
may still be co-authored by A, both legally and morally speaking: you
can do quite a bit of rewriting of a contribution while keeping the gist
of it intact.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
