Mailing List Archive

2009/1/11 Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>:
> 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, Phoebe and perhaps Geni were all able to accept the spirit of a
> pleasant diversion, and develop new ideas accordingly. After all, there
> is more to Wikieschatology than the knowledge itself.
>

Not a diversion as such. Testing licenses is a fairly standard
activity. Debian have their carefully thought out scenarios to test
for freeness (which the GFDL fails btw). Testing usability is harder
but one way to approach it is to try and work out how the license
applies in media and situations there authors were not really thinking
about. 45s are useful since they put some rather firm constraints with
regards to what you can do while still holding enough information
(several minutes of sound) to make the question of some interest.
Sculpture and other 3D options are another useful thought (or
practical) experiment since with the possible exception of the Free
art license the license authors don't appear to have thought that hard
about that scenario.

In terms of making it a wikimania challenge it might be interesting to
have categories along the lines of:

*most creative reuse
*most technically challengingly meeting of licensing terms
*most creative meeting of licensing terms


--
geni

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

2009/1/11 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> 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 tracking modifications in the history section.

For its author credit provisions, the GFDL includes specific
permission to limit credit to the five principal authors. It is
evident that this permission exists precisely to avoid an eternally
inflating byline. Even then, it was clear that the covers of software
manuals did not have infinite space.

In the context of Wikipedia, authors do not receive credit alongside
the page title as suggested for software manuals. Indeed, the closest
there is in Wikipedia to the byline suggested in the GFDL is a link to
the document history close to the page title. In the context of
Wikipedia, authors are not named as part of the copyright notice.

Wikipedia contributors have therefore interpreted the GFDL in the
context of Wikipedia to allow for principal author attribution, with a
link to the history as a reasonable alternative. 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 fact that author
credit and change history are combined in the context of Wikipedia is
irrelevant, as they are covered by separate provisions in the GFDL.

Wikipedia contributors, including you above, widely agree that a
requirement to include full change histories is "overkill" and would
make re-use extremely cumbersome if not completely infeasible for
heavily edited articles. No contributor has ever attempted to enforce
this provision of the GFDL, and it seems quite likely that such an
attempt would be rejected by a court on grounds of established
guidelines, practices and expectations, including site-wide copyright
terms such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ,
which contributors agree to when making edits.

The FSF agrees that this requirement is not in the spirit of the
license when dealing with heavily edited documents, or at least it
does not disagree, for it has not insisted on switching to a license
which preserves this onerous change tracking requirement. Instead, for
massive multi-author collaborations, it has given permission to use a
license, CC-BY-SA, which only requires to indicate that modifications
have been made (section 3.b), not to include a full record of such
modifications.

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.
Given its clear reference to five principal authors for author credit,
and given established practices to link to the page history (or even
the article, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
), the proposed attribution-by-URL in certain circumstances is a fully
legally and ethically acceptable way to meet this need.

This does not close the door to improvements to attribution guidelines
and practices, including software changes, but such improvements are a
separate issue from the license update itself. That update, as I've
expressed before, is motivated by many factors, chiefly including
compatibility and - in summary - the overall complexity of the license
for re-users. The change history inclusion requirement is only one
element of that complexity.
--
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

2009/1/11 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> 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 in it.

> Given its clear reference to five principal authors for author credit,
> and given established practices to link to the page history (or even
> the article, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
> ), the proposed attribution-by-URL in certain circumstances is a fully
> legally and ethically acceptable way to meet this need.

Your conclusion is technically correct but meaningless and your line
of reasoning is highly questionable at best.

--
geni

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

2009/1/11 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/11 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>> 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 in it.

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.

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

2009/1/11 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> 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 but that means nothing. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 actually says:

provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the
name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied

For clarity the license opening defines the original author to be the
individual or individuals who created the thing.

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.

--
geni

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

2009/1/11 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/11 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
>> 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 but that means nothing. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 actually says:
>
> provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the
> name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied

Interesting - the "human-readable" version says: "You must attribute
the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". Now that
I look for it, however, I can't find anything like that in the license
itself...

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

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2009/1/11 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> > 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 tracking modifications in the history section.
>

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.

Thus, the rest of your convoluted argument is irrelevant.

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 that "the change history" isn't in the
format or location that "the section entitled 'History' would be".
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> 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 that "the change history" isn't in the
> format or location that "the section entitled 'History' would be".
>

In fact, while we're talking about intent, wasn't the software
implementation of the change history created before the GFDL was adopted?
It seems to me that the change history couldn't possibly have been intended
to represent the GFDL section entitled history. In fact, there used to be a
[[Wikipedia:GFDL History]] page provided this. It wasn't deleted until 28
December 2006. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:GFDL_History_(unofficial)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/11 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 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 that CC-BY-SA makes reference to principal authors in a
similar fashion as the GFDL does. Of course it does not. However, it
allows attribution by name and/or by URI, and also states that "The
credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any
reasonable manner". 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 GFDL.
--
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

2009/1/11 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> 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 attribution are served by the same software function. That a
listing of all authors would always be included directly (as opposed
to by reference) with any copy of a Wikipedia article is not a
reasonable inference from this fact, especially given that the
language in GFDL which clearly exists for purpose of giving credit
includes reasonable limitations (principal authors). After all, even
you yourself agree that including the full change history with each
copy is overkill.

Hence, we are having a practical debate about what is and isn't
reasonable. I base my argument on the language of the GFDL when it
comes to author credit, which includes limitations, as well as
established guidelines and practices on Wikipedia. Your argument, on
the other hand, appears to be pulled out of thin air. It is neither a
direct requirement of the GFDL, nor an established practice, nor a
reasonable expectation of a volunteer contributor. I can only conclude
that it is your personal preference.
--
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

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> 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 GFDL.


Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made?
That's horrible.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/12 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> 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 GFDL.
>
>
> Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made?
> That's horrible.

Yeah, you have a point there... It can't be done via terms of service
since that requires getting people to agree to them and it's too late
for that. Another method is required.

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

2009/1/12 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> 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 GFDL.

> Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made?

Yes, because it's consistent with the past licensing terms
(attribution/credit requirements of the GFDL) and, to the extent that
terms of service have been published through pages like
Wikipedia:Copyrights, with those terms as well.
--
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

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2009/1/11 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> > 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 attribution are served by the same software function. That a
> listing of all authors would always be included directly (as opposed
> to by reference) with any copy of a Wikipedia article is not a
> reasonable inference from this fact, especially given that the
> language in GFDL which clearly exists for purpose of giving credit
> includes reasonable limitations (principal authors).


I fail to see how you can follow the GFDL without crediting all authors.

After all, even
> you yourself agree that including the full change history with each
> copy is overkill.


I don't think you understand what I meant by that. I don't think the GFDL
should require including a full change history, but I do think it should
require every author to be credited directly in the document, and it should
ensure that these authors are credited in a way that they are not considered
responsible for modifications made by others.

Hence, we are having a practical debate about what is and isn't
> reasonable. I base my argument on the language of the GFDL when it
> comes to author credit, which includes limitations, as well as
> established guidelines and practices on Wikipedia.


Why?


> Your argument, on the other hand, appears to be pulled out of thin air.


I assure you that the concept of the right to attribution is not something I
pulled out of thin air.

It is neither a
> direct requirement of the GFDL, nor an established practice, nor a
> reasonable expectation of a volunteer contributor. I can only conclude
> that it is your personal preference.


It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your
weasel-word of "direct" is supposed to mean). It most certainly is an
established practice (it's part of the Berne Convention, though it's a part
which the United States has failed to implement). And it most certainly is
a reasonable expectation of a volunteer contribution (plagiarism is a
violation of a natural right which even a five-year old would recognize).
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/12 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> 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 bylines, and given the way these clauses have always
been interpreted, specified and implemented, you really have no case
that simplifying the change tracking requirements through CC-BY-SA
constitutes an unreasonable change.
--
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

2009/1/9 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>
> 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 available under CC-BY-SA;
> * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for
> the wiki, the person submitting it is its "Original Author" (while the
> combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA).
>
> A wiki page would therefore have multiple "Original Authors" per
> CC-BY-SA.

For the record, this interpretation has been confirmed by Creative
Commons General Counsel. The application of an edit results in an
Adaptation with multiple Original Authors. They've also confirmed that
an attribution regime where edits are attributed via reference to the
history page is fully consistent with CC-BY-SA.
--
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

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.
> ...
> In the context of
> Wikipedia, authors are not named as part of the copyright notice.

I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?

That appears to be how GFDL is supposed to be used (as per "How to
use this License for your documents"), taking "document" to mean an
article. It's also standard practice to state the copyright owners
(look at the large majority of webpages, or any book).

Mike

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

> 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 details.)" is displayed, and that's
pretty much all that is practical. Another link to the history page
might be good, I guess.

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

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>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 terms of the GNU Free Documentation
> License. (See Copyrights for details.)" is displayed, and that's
> pretty much all that is practical. Another link to the history page
> might be good, I guess.
>

Perhaps this could read something like:

"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License. (See Copyrights for details and History for contribut[ions|ors].)"

I hope we can get to the point where referencing the article itself is
enough both for the copyright notices and the attribution(s) - refer to
other thread.

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