Hello everybody,
I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or
URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of
this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
can see (it was shortly discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments ).
Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business.
Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in
troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia
should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which
was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be
lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is
not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to
continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the
attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face
of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much
anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards,
Jiri Hofman
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or
URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of
this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
can see (it was shortly discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments ).
Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business.
Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in
troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia
should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which
was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be
lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is
not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to
continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the
attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face
of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much
anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards,
Jiri Hofman
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l