Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/3/11 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> 3. If the intent is to maintain a stipulation that conforming >> to the license can be done by satisfying a significantly >> lower threshold than supplying the authors, but since we >> are doing that "more onerous route", every other sad site >> should do the same; well I simply disagree, and that >> phrasing merely reads petulant and doesn't even get the >> point across. >> > > I'm not sure we're understanding each other, still. > > The point of the provision is to ensure that attribution by link > always happens by linking to a copy that actually gives authorship > information. In most cases that will be our website, but the > attribution requirements should allow for independent mirrors and > forks. > > I've reworded it slightly: > "b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable > online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the > license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner > equivalent to the credit given on this website" > First, allow me to apologize if my first reply was a bit flip and perhaps not useful in tracking down where our source of differing viewpoint lies. Any Wikimedia hosting website will never be a "copy" in the sense of you being able to link to it to satisfy the intent of the CC-BY-SA license. (Much as a library is not a book.) And if it were a possibility to mislead our reusers to think that were actually the case, that would be a very bad thing indeed. The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct link into the history is sadly the only option available. I think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative ways of formatting that information (in ways that would for instance cut out the often inflammatory edit summaries), but that is for the future. It would be astonishingly brash to expect that content that is CC-BY-SA would in most cases be attributed to their rightful authors via our site. I am frankly surprised you even raise the notion. Share Alike means that Wikimedia isn't privileged in any shape or form in the chain of copyleft. If I can ask of anything, I ask you please not to try to break that chain. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
Robert Rohde wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > >> Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are >> introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can >> be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities >> that were there before, and still remain. >> > > > > >> I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition. >> >> I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue >> concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive. >> >> But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable >> people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly >> better license for what we do. Period. >> > > > > Relicensing is not free. It adds a new layer of potential confusion, > exposes us to various legal uncertainties, and generates non-trivial > hassle (not least of which is the sometimes-but-not-always dual > licensing scheme that we would have to keep track of). > As RMS himself has said (ipse dixit), moving to CC-BY-SA removes encumbrances that are there for reasons that don't apply to us (massively collaborative projects that aren't a sideshow to computer programs, to put it bluntly). I don't understand what is that hard to understand about that. There are no legal uncertainties that WMF is exposed to therein. That is simply balderdash. Dual, or for that matter multiple licensing should be viewed as a liberating rather than a hassle generating factor. Come on. We are giving more choice to the reusers, who exactly is being hassled here? And for the mercy of all that is merciful, why on earth would it be incumbent on the foundation to keep track of anything done about the content, except as a hobby or as a way of making sure the trademark was not diluted (nothing to do with content licensing at all)? > I do not consider those issues insurmountable. > > However, if we are going to relicense (and ultimately I think we > should get away from the GFDL) then it is also important that we get > something useful at the end of the day. You say: "CC-BY-SA is a > vastly better license for what we do", but that is only true if > CC-BY-SA is demonstrably useful. The point I am trying to make is > that in order for CC-BY-SA to be useful we should be prepared to > concretely show examples of how it can and should be used. If we > can't do that, then it largely is not useful. > No, this is not accurate. Just saying that problems are removed is enough. We are not in the business of giving medical advice, and by the same token we should not be in the business of giving legal advice, even about our own content. Period. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Erik Moeller wrote: > Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the > language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining > some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the > meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any bugs in this > specific language, given its intent which should be self-evident. To > keep the discussion focused, please read it from the perspective of a > "from scratch" attribution model, i.e., imagine that a new > encyclopedia wiki that you'd contribute to had these terms. Which > problems would they cause? Are there specific third party uses that > would be significantly hampered by these terms? > BTW, the most (not only specific but even general) significant third party use hampered by the general scheme of your whole conception of that "from scratch" approach, is that it is simply false. Sorry. Somebody had to say that. We are not starting fresh. We have way too much baggage for that to work. Language will not bind contributors who understand they are protected by the copyleft provisions of both GFDL and CC-BY-SA. That just will not happen. In the real world much of the terms of use will be just so much arm-waving, let us be realistic. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P.S. Anyone going to catch the 19.3. speech by Lawrence Lessig at the San Francisco "Legally Speaking" event? Only costs 50 bucks for entrance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > I think you fail at logic. > > You could not have two mirrors linking to each others with > neither listing the authors, if the first one to mirror was > compliant with the CC-BY-SA. Posit the first mirror complied with > and required compliance of that license. It would have to > attribute in a reasonable form and require attribution in a > reasonable form from those taking content from it. If the site > copying from it, did not attribute in a reasonable form, it > could in no way be considered compliant. Logic 101. I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're talking about what forms of attribution are acceptable for people using our content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that attribution by URL is acceptable for people using the content under CC-BY-SA. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does > satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct > link into the history is sadly the only option available. I > think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative > ways of formatting that information (in ways that would > for instance cut out the often inflammatory edit summaries), > but that is for the future. Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel guides, etc. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/history/Xenu for the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu . Something to point at for CC-by-sa attribution is an actual reason to put this into MediaWiki. cc to wikitech-l - is this something suitable for Wikimedia use? Shall I file an enhancement bug? See also: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1450 . - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/14 David Gerard : > 2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does >> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct >> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I >> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative >> ways of formatting that information (in ways that would >> for instance cut out the often inflammatory edit summaries), >> but that is for the future. > > > Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with > stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel > guides, etc. If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/14 geni : > 2009/3/14 David Gerard : >> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with >> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel >> guides, etc. > If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a > version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid > include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug. That's true. OTOH, non-pukey history URLs would be good to have anyway. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Hungary picture competiton
Dear All, Pray, allow me to announce the first ever international picture competition of Wikimedia Hungary. [1] The competition officially launching tomorrow, commemorating a Hungarian national holiday[2], is aimed at gathering visual representations - photographs, videos, maps, drawings, SVG graphics, etc. - that have a 'Hungarian aspect'. We are awaiting submissions in the next three months from all over the world. Apart from the endless possibilities of works created in Hungary - e.g. on a summer visit -, we hope to engage the international community of photographers, and graphic artists of Wikimedia Commons. Please take a look at our prepared list of possible works to be created all over the world (including geographical places, museums, events and suggestions for non-photographic contributions). [3] The submissions will be evaluated by the community in a way similar to the Picture of the Year competition, the authors of the best pictures will be awarded a Wikimedia gift package. For more information, please visit the competition's homepage on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competition Thank you, Bence Damokos Wikimédia Magyarország http://wiki.media.hu/wiki/Home P.s. I would like to ask you to forward this announcement to all whom it may concern, your local village pumps, chapters' communities, and photographers and people who might be interested in participating. [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competition [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_Hungarian_Revolution [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competition/list ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/14 David Gerard : > 2009/3/14 geni : >> 2009/3/14 David Gerard : >>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with >>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel >>> guides, etc. >> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a >> version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid >> include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug. > That's true. OTOH, non-pukey history URLs would be good to have anyway. I figure a regular URL which will survive speech is a good thing. The best way to compliance is to make it really easy. Bug filed: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17981 - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
geni wrote: > 2009/3/14 David Gerard : > >> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with >> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel >> guides, etc. >> > If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a > version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid > include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug. > It's hard to know who's being serious here. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > > >> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does >> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct >> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I >> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative >> ways of formatting that information (in ways that would >> for instance cut out the often inflammatory edit summaries), >> but that is for the future. >> > > > Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with > stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel > guides, etc. > > e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/history/Xenu for the history of > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu . > > Something to point at for CC-by-sa attribution is an actual reason to > put this into MediaWiki. > > cc to wikitech-l - is this something suitable for Wikimedia use? Shall > I file an enhancement bug? > > See also: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1450 . > > Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother. I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly, that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into something like http://wmattr/342y6 or the like (perhaps even http://wpattr/342y6 ; http://wsattr/342y6 ; http://wnattr/342y6 and the like. Of course it would be better if it would direct (in the future at least) to a stripped history without the summaries. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother. > > I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly, > that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service > on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into > something like http://wmattr/342y6 or the like (perhaps > even http://wpattr/342y6 ; http://wsattr/342y6 ; http://wnattr/342y6 > and the like. Of course it would be better if it would > direct (in the future at least) to a stripped history > without the summaries. Presumably you mean to have a ".org" in there? I think the summaries are necessary, though - they are where we put details of where non-original content has come from. You can't just attribute the content you are reusing to the appropriate Wikimedians, you need to attribute it to the actual creators. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother. >> >> I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly, >> that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service >> on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into >> something like http://wmattr/342y6 or the like (perhaps >> even http://wpattr/342y6 ; http://wsattr/342y6 ; http://wnattr/342y6 >> and the like. Of course it would be better if it would >> direct (in the future at least) to a stripped history >> without the summaries. >> > > Presumably you mean to have a ".org" in there? > > I think the summaries are necessary, though - they are where we put > details of where non-original content has come from. You can't just > attribute the content you are reusing to the appropriate Wikimedians, > you need to attribute it to the actual creators. > > I think the practice of using summary lines for attribution has from the start been viewed as a temporary solution, only to be used until we figure out a better way to handle content such as translations from other language projects. I think if we do go towards creating an easy link which contains a list of editors culled from history with no duplicates, it might include a method of externally adding attributions into that plain text form, for just such translations and imported content from other sites, where the content may even have a large list of authors itself. When and if that eventually materializes (next year in Jerusalem; yearning for Zion; by and by, lord; when the lion shall lie down with the lamb - insert your own religious affiliations allusion to the eternal return here) naturally the summaries should be purged and the attributions temporarily lodged there given their proper place. I could even imagine some semi-automated method that would while stripping off the summaries, simultaneously scrape off the urls and wikilinks in them and for good measure append them to the list of editors. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > I think the practice of using summary lines for attribution > has from the start been viewed as a temporary solution, > only to be used until we figure out a better way to handle > content such as translations from other language projects. > > I think if we do go towards creating an easy link which > contains a list of editors culled from history with no > duplicates, it might include a method of externally > adding attributions into that plain text form, for just > such translations and imported content from other > sites, where the content may even have a large list > of authors itself. That would be great, if it can be made to work. > When and if that eventually materializes (next year in Jerusalem; > yearning for Zion; by and by, lord; when the lion shall lie down > with the lamb - insert your own religious affiliations allusion > to the eternal return here) naturally the summaries should > be purged and the attributions temporarily lodged there > given their proper place. I could even imagine some > semi-automated method that would while stripping off > the summaries, simultaneously scrape off the urls and > wikilinks in them and for good measure append them > to the list of editors. Unfortunately there is no standard way of writing attribution edit summaries, so automation is going to be difficult. Semi-automation, as you say, might be possible for those summaries that include links (a person would need to determine if they are attributions, but that's easy enough - a couple of seconds a summary with a decent number of people helping out could get it done is a reasonable amount of time), but what about content taken from offline sources? Probably extremely rare, but can we risk failing to correctly attribute even one or two sources? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update committee open for membership applications
I would actually be in favour of all committee members being required to publicly reveal their real names. The licensing update (if and when it occurs) would be major, historical event. People in charge of supporting/facilitating/implementing the decision regarding any license change should be accountable to the community and to the public. I realise this requirement would be in the face of longstanding WMF tradition, though. —Thomas Larsen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Language will not bind contributors who understand they > are protected by the copyleft provisions of both GFDL and > CC-BY-SA. That just will not happen. > > In the real world much of the terms of use will be just so > much arm-waving, let us be realistic. > This just brings us back to a point I tried to make before. When a user fails or even refuses to comply with whatever attribution rules we proclaim, who is going to force him to do so? Contributors: Take solace in the knowledge that your rights are fully protected by an army of paper tigers. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
