Mailing List Archive

Mark Wagner wrote:
> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>:
>> Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа:
>>> I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously -
>>> its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would
>>> expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do
>>> is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to
>>> court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you
>>> must contribute according to the intention
>>> and correct
>>> interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license
>>> may or may not be in line with the correct
>>> view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have.
>> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy
>> of the Program. However, nothing other than this License grants you
>> permission to propagate or modify any covered work.
>
> I think we've found part of the problem: that's from the GNU GPL.
> Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU FDL.

The same principle is stated the most beautifully in the GPL, but
applies to GFDL and CC licences too.

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

It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.

I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily
accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they should
possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they give
credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or
disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content
can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business. It
seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep
dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean problems
to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.

Is it possible to add it?

Jiri

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

Hoi,
This would be acceptable when you are shooting on a fixed target. Given the
huge amount of changes it is too much to ask for.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/16 Jiri Hofman <hofmanj@aldebaran.cz>

> It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
>
> I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily
> accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they
> should
> possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they give
> credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or
> disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content
> can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business. It
> seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep
> dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean problems
> to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.
>
> Is it possible to add it?
>
> Jiri
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I do not understand. About what changes are you talking about? When an article
is re-used, it is the fixed target at that time, of course. Everybody can
keep the list for the safe of its own business. The WMF should not
foreshadow the re-user will be safe with links to WMF's sites for ever. The
WMF will not be here for ever.

Jiri

On Tuesday, 16. June 2009 13:22:30 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> This would be acceptable when you are shooting on a fixed target. Given the
> huge amount of changes it is too much to ask for.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/6/16 Jiri Hofman <hofmanj@aldebaran.cz>
>
> > It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
> >
> > I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily
> > accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they
> > should
> > possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they
give
> > credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or
> > disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content
> > can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business.
It
> > seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep
> > dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean
problems
> > to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.
> >
> > Is it possible to add it?
> >
> > Jiri
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Дана Monday 15 June 2009 21:09:36 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>:
> > Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
> >> The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
> >> as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
> >
> > Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual
> > licences?
>
> For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
>
> Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised
> terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days,
> beginning today.

Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new
notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without
contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you
wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of
other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits prior
to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit is
sufficient, how is this actually going to work?

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

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>wrote:

> Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The
> new
> notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
> medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without
> contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you
> wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of
> other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits
> prior
> to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit
> is
> sufficient, how is this actually going to work?


The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.

Don't try to understand it. Either accept it, or move on.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.

Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work. It doesn't
mean "you can edit anything in" but it isn't supposed to.

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

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>wrote:

> äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
> > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
>
> Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.


And this will work in exactly the same sense.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>wrote:
> > äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
> > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
> >
> > Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
>
> And this will work in exactly the same sense.

No it won't.

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

2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>:
> Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new
> notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
> medium".

No it says "Re-users will be required to credit you in any medium, at
minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are
contributing to" which is both actively misleading and not an actual
release. It is also longer than your version.

> Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without
> contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you
> wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of
> other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits prior
> to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit is
> sufficient, how is this actually going to work?

It doesn't but Erik appears to hope that enough hand waving will make
the issue go away.

--
geni

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

2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>

> äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu
> >wrote:
> > > äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
> > > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
> > >
> > > Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
> >
> > And this will work in exactly the same sense.
>
> No it won't.


Why not?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/16 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>

> 2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu>
>
>> äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu
>> >wrote:
>> > > äÁÎÁ Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony ÎÁÐÉÓÁ:
>> > > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
>> > >
>> > > Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
>> >
>> > And this will work in exactly the same sense.
>>
>> No it won't.
>
>
> Why not?
>

By the way, if you really believe it won't work, and you want to start a
fork, I'm in.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l