Mailing List Archive: Attribution

Attribution

Oct 23, 2008, 12:27 PM

Post #1 of 5 (722 views)

As I have shown at

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Historiograf/GNU_FDL_Highway_to_Hell_-_FAQ

it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.

You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for
the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not
being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If
there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this
wouldn't make sense.

The ADDENDUM gives the model for attribution for GFDL contributions:

"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the License in the document and put the following copyright and
license notices just after the title page:
Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
"GNU Free Documentation License"."

If you are verbatim copying you have to copy 1:1, id est to keep all
sections including the section history with the collection of
copyright notices according the ADDENDUM. In the notices are fields
with the names of the authors.

For modifications there are the following relevant rules:

"D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document."

"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and
add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there
is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating
the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on
its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as
stated in the previous sentence."

The WMF opinion that the version history isn't the section history is
clearly wrong. After each modification something has to be added to
the section history OR the section history has to be created. Thus one
can only conclude that the section history is the version history.

A line in the version history is both copyright notice and part of the
section history.

Wikipedia is a de facto anonymous colloborative work with the wrong
license. CC-BY-SA would be the right license if and only if BY only
refers to Wikipedia but not to the myriad of authors.

Klaus Graf

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Attribution [ In reply to ]

millosh at gmail

Jan 8, 2009, 7:33 PM

Post #2 of 5 (604 views)

Permalink

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com> wrote:
> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
> see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.

This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike Godwin have to
say about this. I also don't think that any license is able to say
"you don't need to give attribution to [all] authors", even it is
about CC-BY. (Otherwise, copyleft licenses seems like a decoration
over PD.)

Yes, some reasonable solution should be found, but [all] authors
should be attributed somehow. (Let's say, by referring to some other
work.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Attribution [ In reply to ]

millosh at gmail

Jan 8, 2009, 7:36 PM

Post #3 of 5 (598 views)

Permalink

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
>> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
>> see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
>
> This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike Godwin have to
> say about this. I also don't think that any license is able to say
> "you don't need to give attribution to [all] authors", even it is
> about CC-BY. (Otherwise, copyleft licenses seems like a decoration
> over PD.)
>
> Yes, some reasonable solution should be found, but [all] authors
> should be attributed somehow. (Let's say, by referring to some other
> work.)

Ah, here is the answer, which seems to me good enough:

"CC-BY-SA allows more flexible attribution choices than GFDL does, so
that attribution constraints can be specified by the author or (more
commonly) agreed to by everyone who chooses to contribute to the wiki.
(If you don't like the attribution norms of a particular wiki you're
considering contributing to, you can choose not to contribute, of
course.) For Wikipedia, attribution will continue on the project more
or less as it has in the past. What will be clearer is that linking to
a History page (or pages), which is what Wikipedia has normally done,
is an acceptable form of attribution, both within Wikipedia and with
regard to off-project reuse of Wikipedia content, at least for content
where the author lists would otherwise be onerous to reproduce."

From: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Attribution [ In reply to ]

erik at wikimedia

Jan 8, 2009, 7:53 PM

Post #4 of 5 (600 views)

Permalink

2009/1/8 Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>:
> You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
> is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for
> the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not
> being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If
> there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this
> wouldn't make sense.

The key point is that the GFDL does not require to give attribution
_by_ reproducing the history section. You have not made any case that
the history section in GFDL documents was created for purposes of
attribution. It wasn't; its purpose is the documentation of changes.
The CC-BY-SA has similar attribution _and_ documentation of changes
requirements. However, its documentation of changes requirements are
not onerous and can be flexibly interpreted (see 3.b in
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ).

We can build the terms of attribution around existing, established
practice that meets reasonable expectations of volunteers. Referring
to a copy of the history where reproducing such a list would be
unreasonable and onerous is one such practice. I don't see any
evidence that it has been historically a reasonable expectation of
volunteers to always have a full list of names and changes included
with any copy; in fact, it appears like most of the arguments to this
effect were made purely for reasons of legal literalism, rather than
to satisfy any actual perceived need. With a migration to CC-BY-SA,
that argument loses its legal footing.

> The ADDENDUM gives the model for attribution for GFDL contributions:

And, again, you are supporting the above point: if the copyright
notice exists for purposes of attribution, then the history section
does not. Whether or not the GFDL requires reproduction of the history
section is irrelevant for purposes of considering the attribution
requirements as they will exist under CC-BY-SA. What's relevant is
that there is continuity in meeting reasonable expectations that
people may have had when making their content available under GFDL.

> The main problems with linking to the history as attribution:
>
> * If articles were moved - the links doesn't work and the license expires

That should be technically addressable by making history links follow redirects.

> * If articles were deleted - dito

And the infringement can be pointed out accordingly.

> * If the Wikimedia project is offline - dito.

For short term intervals, that's a minor issue. For long term periods
(e.g. WMF goes bankrupt), again, it's an infringement which can be
pointed out and corrected.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Attribution [ In reply to ]

wikimail at inbox

Jan 10, 2009, 11:47 AM

Post #5 of 5 (589 views)

Permalink

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2009/1/8 Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>:
> > You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
> > is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for
> > the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not
> > being considered responsible for modifications made by others." If
> > there would be only an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this
> > wouldn't make sense.
>
> The key point is that the GFDL does not require to give attribution
> _by_ reproducing the history section.

How not? Are you saying that the GFDL does not require reproducing the
history section, or are you saying that reproducing the history section does
not provide attribution?

> You have not made any case that
> the history section in GFDL documents was created for purposes of
> attribution.

Actually, he did. He quoted the preamble, and said "If there would be only
an obligation to mention the 5 main authors this [preamble] wouldn't make
sense."

I don't see any
> evidence that it has been historically a reasonable expectation of
> volunteers to always have a full list of names and changes included
> with any copy

Maybe not, but there has always been a reasonable expectation that the full
list of names and changes would be easily accessible to anyone receiving a
copy.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l