Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: Anthony writes: Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. It is a common mistake... [snip] I'm confused... why have you sent a reply (twice) to an off-topic thread that died out over a week ago? Or did these get stuck in the moderation system somehow? (In which case - Mods: if you don't keep up to date with moderation, just delete emails that are no longer relevant [and let the author know], it rarely serves much purpose posting them a week late.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: Anthony writes: Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. It is a common mistake... [snip] I'm confused... why have you sent a reply (twice) to an off-topic thread that died out over a week ago? Or did these get stuck in the moderation system somehow? (In which case - Mods: if you don't keep up to date with moderation, just delete emails that are no longer relevant [and let the author know], it rarely serves much purpose posting them a week late.) As I explained to Mike already: It must have been a technical problem -- his mails are not and were never moderated. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Ray Saintonge writes Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee going to jail. So much for the right to bear arms! :-) Oh, the Second Amendment can be invoked, sometimes even successfully, these days. But remember that's in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Anthony was citing the Declaration of Independence, incorrectly, as the basis of the American legal system. Actually, the Constitution is the basis for that. Incidentally, the Constitution does not guarantee either rights in copyright generally, or rights of attribution specifically. What it does do specifically is allow the Congress to *create* such rights -- a notion that natural-rights copyright theorists can't quite explain. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Ray Saintonge writes Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee going to jail. So much for the right to bear arms! :-) Oh, the Second Amendment can be invoked, sometimes even successfully, these days. But remember that's in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Anthony was citing the Declaration of Independence, incorrectly, as the basis of the American legal system. Actually, the Constitution is the basis for that. Since the moderators don't want us engaging in this discussion I'll keep my response short. You are misrepresenting what I said. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony wrote: Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last paragraph seems to imply that you understand it. Per Eric Partridge's Origins, both words are Latin in origin. Moral is from mores the plural of mos indicating a way of carrying oneself, hence especially of behaving; a custom as determined by usage, not by law. Morose is from the same source. Right derives from rex meaning the king; it took a king to set things straight. Is there something natural in that? It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no evidence in the physical world that this difference exists. In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief? U.S. courts still have witnesses who swear to tell the truth, So help me God, with one hand on the Bible; this only shows that the separation of church and state is far from perfect. The concept of larger moral rights (rather than those associated with copyrights) is religious because it is based on faith alone. That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal. Theft has been quite consistently viewed as wrong throughout history, with possible exemptions for kings. To say this of slavery, however, in the US context, would be to say that Christian slave-owners before the Emancipation Proclamation were all immoral. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. It is a common mistake to confuse the Declaration of Independence (which Anthony quotes above), which uses the rhetoric of natural rights, with the U.S. Constitution, which does not use that rhetoric. The first was published in 1776; the second was completed in 1787, with the Bill of Rights added in 1791. The reason for the addition of the Bill of Rights was precisely that the Framers and the voters came to believe that no concept of natural rights was adequate to guarantee protection of things like the freedom of speech, even under a government of limited and specified powers. Of course, any historically informed reading of the Declaration of Independence can see that its natural-rights rhetoric can be understand in ways that are consistent with the explicit creation of rights in the Constitution. To wit, we may be said to have the general natural right to create our own specific Constitutionally and legally guaranteed rights. (This is more or less what the Declaration of Independence says.) But it's quite clear that the Declaration of Independence, standing alone, has no legal force. It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one, which may be why Anthony prefers quoting the Declaration to quoting the Constitution (in whose Amendments the freedom of speech is guaranteed). It should be noted that the Constitution does not even grant rights to Authors and Inventors. What it does, expressly, is give Congress the power to create such rights (without specifying what those rights might be). It would clearly be constitutional for Congress to change rights in copyright, or even remove them. Such a change is not the sort of thing that can be understood by any naive natural-rights theory of copyright. Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee going to jail. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. In an effort to add some light rather than heat, let me say this in response: It is a common mistake to confuse the Declaration of Independence (quoted above), which uses the rhetoric of natural rights, with the U.S. Constitution, which does not use that rhetoric. The first was published in 1776; the second was completed in 1787, with the Bill of Rights added in 1791. The reason for the addition of the Bill of Rights was precisely that the Framers and the voters came to believe that no concept of natural rights was adequate to guarantee protection of things like the freedom of speech, even under a government of limited and specified powers. The Declaration of Independence is not part of the legal system in the United States of America. It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one. Of course, any historically informed reading of the Declaration of Independence can see that its natural-rights rhetoric can be understand in ways that are consistent with the explicit creation of rights in the Constitution. To wit, we may be said to have the general natural right to create our own specific Constitutionally and legally guaranteed rights. (This is more or less what the Declaration of Independence says. But it's quite clear that the Declaration of Independence, standing alone, has no legal force.) It should be noted that the Constitution does not even grant rights to Authors and Inventors. What it does, expressly, is give Congress the power to create such rights (without specifying what those rights might be). It would clearly be constitutional for Congress to change rights in copyright, or even remove them. Such a change is not the sort of thing that can be understood by any natural-rights theory of copyright. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
George Herbert wrote: Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors distinct from copyright owners etc. The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a term of the art in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent. It is acknowledged in section 106A, but that seems to have been added more as a form of lip-service to international treaties. At the same time US law seems to be at pains to make sure that it has no meaningful legal effect. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony wrote: Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by congressmen. It was not created by congressmen because there were no congressmen before the US Constitution was written. The fact that they held their opinions to be self-evident does not make their opinions universal. Your self-serving comment is on a par with saying that God exists because the Bible says so. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thursday 22 January 2009 23:23:17 Andrew Whitworth wrote: * I make the blanket assumption that everybody here is being perfectly reasonable. What an unreasonable assumption! :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Anthony writes: A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has automatically and the law is just recognising that. If you are in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV) you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't enforce them. There is a fundamental difference between a right granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. That difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you dismiss it, but there is a difference. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Thomas Dalton writes: This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has automatically and the law is just recognising that. I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't have any. If you are in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV) you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't enforce them. A more nuanced and accurate view of the term moral rights is that it is a term of art relating to copyright and other rights in creative works. There is a fundamental difference between a right granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. Is this difference based on anything in the physical world? That difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you dismiss it, but there is a difference. It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no evidence in the physical world that this difference exists. Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright. If what you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that moral rights obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to things like property ownership and personal liberty. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@well.com: Thomas Dalton writes: This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has automatically and the law is just recognising that. I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't have any. [snip] There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I, for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: Anthony writes: Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights Please understand that I am entirely familiar with the notions of moral rights and natural rights. (I suspect I am more familiar with this notions than you are.) Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not have it. I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by anyone, but I promise I have it! Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse. How in the world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that? Seriously, that's appalling. I suppose it is appalling to anyone who cherishes naive notions about the meaning of a specialized term like moral rights that other people may choose not to employ them naively. To be frank, those of us who actually have to work with such terms don't have the luxury of using them sloppily and naively. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not have it. I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by anyone, but I promise I have it! Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised by anyone. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Thomas Dalton writes: I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't have any. [snip] There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I, for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views. I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of the world outside the legal profession (and, indeed, if you were a member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word moral rights is being thrown around here by people who are only casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more seriously. Do you understand what the term term of art means? By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of the world outside the legal profession (and, indeed, if you were a member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word moral rights is being thrown around here by people who are only casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more seriously. Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether they are written down in statute (or case law) or not. Do you understand what the term term of art means? Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality. By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle. Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am well trained in logic and reasoned argument. That's not dissimiliar to the training philosophers have (well, those that argue about vaguely meaningful things, rather than angels and pins, anyway). While I may not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world. Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world. Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature? This discussion has descended far below the threshold of usefulness now. If there's nothing else to talk about besides thinly-veiled ad hominems and I know more philosophy then you mental masturbation, could this discussion please go off-list? --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world. Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature? This discussion has descended far below the threshold of usefulness now. If there's nothing else to talk about besides thinly-veiled ad hominems and I know more philosophy then you mental masturbation, could this discussion please go off-list? Hear, hear. I'm glad that I can respond to Andrew's post here, because if I had been replying to either Thomas, Anthony or Mike the following would have seemed to be directed at someone specifically, which it is not: Please Stop It. This thread used to be on the Re-licensing issue, which is an issue many people are interested it. Thus, you can't even bring up the usual Well, it's off-topic, but everyone can filter it out of their inbox by a subject-filter counter-argument, because many people actually *do* care about the Re-licensing and do not intend at all to filter it out of their inbox. What has happened, though, is that the thread has first been hijacked by a discussion about moral rights and other legal and philosophical concepts (which I myself found at least interesting, if completely off-topic) and now, it has gone down to a rather pathetic I have studied philosophy, you have no clue. I don't need to have studied philosophy to have a clue. I have studied Mathematics and you are a bad philosopher type of chat, which is an absolute no-go. Really, take it offlist. I hope I don't need to enforce this plea because I'm not actually in the mood to do so. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: A single URL could point to a list of all contributors for all articles. Not under your proposal attribution via reference to page histories is acceptable if there are more than five authors. I do agree with you, Mike and others who have pointed out that we want to retain flexibility in application. I'm not arguing for absolutely rigid attribution requirements, and to the extent that the current proposal suggests that, it should be revised. I am, however, arguing for articulating principles and demonstrating them through guidelines and examples, so that there's no ambiguity about our general understanding of what we mean with reasonable applications. What we mean? Err we didn't write the license or the laws that it operates under. What we mean isn't relevant. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Thomas Dalton writes: I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by anyone, but I promise I have it! Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised by anyone. So you recognize my right to your house? Cool! Where is it? When can I get the keys? Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether they are written down in statute (or case law) or not. Oh, so you're creating a special Thomas Daltonian definition of the word moral rights. Cool! Do you understand what the term term of art means? Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality. So you're under the impression that term of art is fancy lawyer speak? By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle. Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am well trained in logic and reasoned argument. This underscores your problem, perhaps. Many mathematicians are under the impression that reasoning from first principles is a substitute for actually doing the necessary reading and learning. The notion that one can argue without knowledge of the relevant facts is one that is common, all by no means universal, among my friends who are mathematicians. While I may not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do. I can understand why arguments based on reading you have not done and facts you do not have wouldn't make sense to you. I'll make allowances. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last paragraph seems to imply that you understand it. Thanks. But surely you don't expect me to tutor you on moral rights jurisprudence when the materials you need are widely available elsewhere. In any case, how do you propose that we can continue in a way that doesn't confuse you with sentences like moral rights are a type of moral rights? I don't feel confused -- it seems to me quite clear where you've gone wrong. There is a fundamental difference between a right granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. Is this difference based on anything in the physical world? Sure, it's based on whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes the right. Oh, you're using fundamental in a way I wasn't expecting. I thought you meant to be understood as saying that the pre-existing right had an independent existence, outside of jurisprudence. It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no evidence in the physical world that this difference exists. In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief? It's invisible, unanalyzable, and an article of faith among believers. Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright. You could have saved us a lot of time by saying that instead of pretending you didn't know what I was talking about. I actually didn't know what you were talking about, since you use language so imprecisely. If what you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that moral rights obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to things like property ownership and personal liberty. That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal. I happen to agree that they are morally wrong, but not as a function of natural-rights jurisprudence. I don't, however, believe abridgement of rights in copyright is morally wrong (although of course I don't approve of it). There's a distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se. I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by anyone, but I promise I have it! Why would you call it *my* house, then? Convention. In any case, moral rights are recognized by many people, just not indisputably under Florida law. Florida law? I thought we were talking about copyright. I see, so you *were* being intentionally obtuse. To try to teach me a lesson. I have to admit I'm glad that's what it was. To have to conclude that you were a complete dolt would have been much more shocking than the conclusion that you're a troll. And I did learn a lesson. I learned about your ignorance of right and wrong, and got a glimpse of the nihilism it stems from. You seem confused here. Sometimes you want to attribute ignorance to me, and sometimes you think I'm intentionally pretending to be ignorant in order to teach you a lesson. I don't think you can consistently hold both views with regard to the same subject matter. Next time you should reflect a little and review your posting before you hit the Send button. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
All this comparing, ahem, brain sizes is very interesting - but ultimately not useful, and detrimental to the ideal tone and purpose of this list. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Michael Bimmler writes: Please Stop It. Sure, Michael. I confess it sometimes amuses me to argue with trolls, but I have no interest in continuing to argue publicly when it ceases to amuse anyone else but me. My apologies. I'll try to keep things more in hand in the future. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it, is it not? And not philosophy writ large? It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
George Herbert writes: There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as counsel, that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf. Godwin's Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago than I care to remember at the moment...). This is going over rather badly with some people's sense of moral indignation over licensing and copyright issues. I confess it is a vice, although better for my liver than alcohol or cocaine. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors distinct from copyright owners etc. If you look at the context in which I used the term moral rights, I think you will agree that I used the term properly to mean rights which are not based on social conventions. Mike said (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.) I replied: Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thursday 22 January 2009 00:20:14 Erik Moeller wrote: The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. In fact, I believe I have the solution that would satisfy everyone. Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. Any system other than crediting everyone or crediting no one requires choosing people. How do you propose that to be done? And why doesn't the person that contributed the 6th most text (say) not deserve to be credited for their work? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. If more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, it'll probably be enough of a critical mass to support a fork, licensed under the GFDL 1.2 only. I don't know if it's going to be that high or not, though. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. If more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, it'll probably be enough of a critical mass to support a fork, licensed under the GFDL 1.2 only. Nope. The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. If more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, it'll probably be enough of a critical mass to support a fork, licensed under the GFDL 1.2 only. Nope. The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way. What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the history tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the real name preference, and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into compliance. You might have to forego dreams of a print edition, but frankly that doesn't seem very effective anyway. You could probably build a hand powered e-reader for less than the cost of printing all of Wikipedia - if not today than in the not too distant future. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote: Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. Any system other than crediting everyone or crediting no one requires choosing people. How do you propose that to be done? And why doesn't the person that contributed the 6th most text (say) not deserve to be credited for their work? I don't agree with that; I do believe that every author with significant (copyrightable) contribution should be credited. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the history tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the real name preference, and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into compliance. You might have to forego dreams of a print edition, but frankly that doesn't seem very effective anyway. You could probably build a hand powered e-reader for less than the cost of printing all of Wikipedia - if not today than in the not too distant future. Wikipedia is in compliance with the GFDL. It's resuers who have serious issues. But then I've been through this with you many times and I don't see any reason to think you are any more likely to get it this time around. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote: Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. Any system other than crediting everyone or crediting no one requires choosing people. How do you propose that to be done? And why doesn't the person that contributed the 6th most text (say) not deserve to be credited for their work? I don't agree with that; I do believe that every author with significant (copyrightable) contribution should be credited. So what was all that about only crediting 5 authors, or a list of authors less than 1% of the article length, or whatever else? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the history tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the real name preference, and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into compliance. You might have to forego dreams of a print edition, but frankly that doesn't seem very effective anyway. You could probably build a hand powered e-reader for less than the cost of printing all of Wikipedia - if not today than in the not too distant future. Wikipedia is in compliance with the GFDL. So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way. What do you mean by this? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thursday 22 January 2009 20:55:21 Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote: Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. Any system other than crediting everyone or crediting no one requires choosing people. How do you propose that to be done? And why doesn't the person that contributed the 6th most text (say) not deserve to be credited for their work? I don't agree with that; I do believe that every author with significant (copyrightable) contribution should be credited. So what was all that about only crediting 5 authors, or a list of authors less than 1% of the article length, or whatever else? These are examples of possibilities for people who disagree with me. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way. What do you mean by this? What I mean is that if we consider the proposal to be legal under the CC license (I don't) then any fork would be better of using CC-BY-SA-3.0 without utilising the Attribution Parties bit of 4(C)(i). This means that it would get the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license without the downside that certain people appear to be trying to add. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. If more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, it'll probably be enough of a critical mass to support a fork, licensed under the GFDL 1.2 only. I don't know if it's going to be that high or not, though. I look forward to you leading it. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way. What do you mean by this? What I mean is that if we consider the proposal to be legal under the CC license (I don't) then any fork would be better of using CC-BY-SA-3.0 without utilising the Attribution Parties bit of 4(C)(i). This means that it would get the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license without the downside that certain people appear to be trying to add. I also don't consider the proposal to be legal under the CC license, but I do think people will probably get away with it anyway. Additionally, I think whole concept of relicensing people's contributions under a different license is immoral and legally questionable. Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows people who consider the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to actually be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from incorporating these changes, thus reducing the likelihood that third parties will come along and use these changes without attribution. I guess if you think the legal case is cut and dry those 10% could get together and initiate a class-action lawsuit, or something, but forking is probably easier and more effective. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or it may be a list of authors that is no longer than 1% of the length of the article, or none of longer; or, when appropriate software is developed, the list of principal authors as recognised by the software; it may even differ from project to project, for example Wikisource may choose to credit the authors manually (it is already doing something similar); and so on and so forth. This is a constructive and useful proposal, thank you. I agree with Milos when he states in another thread that we need to think further about a solution that is satisfactory to a greater number of people, at least when it comes to standardizing attribution requirements with effective application to all past edits ever made. (At minimum, I would like some more data to inform our decisions.) I also believe that the Wikimedia Foundation can responsibly and reasonably determine what attribution model it wants to apply going forward. For example, if WMF decides that a guaranteed by-name attribution is not reasonable, scalable, and detrimental to the goals of WMF, it can responsibly tell people that. People who have made past edits could be given the option to have _those_ edits always attributed by name. The community could gradually factor out those edits if it considers them to be cumbersome. This would cause some people to leave, but WMF could decide that causing some people to leave or fork is worth it in order to encourage greater re-use of content. It's similar to telling people that multimedia files for noncommercial use only are not welcome. Essentially, it would be a further refinement of the standards of freedom for the projects. -- 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: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows people who consider the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to actually be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from incorporating these changes, thus reducing the likelihood that third parties will come along and use these changes without attribution. 1) I would suggest that the number of people who care strongly about the particular license used and consider such a switch to be a detriment is small indeed. This isn't to say that this group should be ignored, only that they aren't going to represent a community with enough viability to sustain a project the size of Wikipedia. I guess if you think the legal case is cut and dry those 10% could get together and initiate a class-action lawsuit, or something, but forking is probably easier and more effective. Forking may certainly be easier, but it's hard for me to imagine that a fork of Wikipedia with 10% of it's population (and I posit that to be a high estimate) will be viable. A slogan of knowledge is free, but reusing it is more difficult because of our stringent attitudes towards attribution isn't going to inspire too many donors when fundraising time rolls around. Plus, Wikipedia's database (I assume you only want to fork Wikipedia, and maybe only the English one) is non-negligible and will cost money to have hosted. Fewer people will use the fork and it will grow more slowly, if it grows at all, because of licensing problems with content use and reuse. The fork will progressively become harder to use and will become more out of touch with the rest of the world of open content knowledge. You'll be able to say that at least if nobody is reusing your content that there is no chance they will be violating the attribution requirement as you've defined it. Given the option between two wikipedias, one that is large and easy to use/reuse/incorporate and one that is small and with a difficult licensing scheme, I think you can guess where the new contributors and new donation dollars will be heading. I don't want to threaten or mock here, but I also don't want to see anybody's valuable contributions be wasted. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: This is a constructive and useful proposal, thank you. I agree with Milos when he states in another thread that we need to think further about a solution that is satisfactory to a greater number of people, at least when it comes to standardizing attribution requirements with effective application to all past edits ever made. (At minimum, I would like some more data to inform our decisions.) I also believe that the Wikimedia Foundation can responsibly and reasonably determine what attribution model it wants to apply going forward. So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? For example, if WMF decides that a guaranteed by-name attribution is not reasonable, scalable, and detrimental to the goals of WMF, it can responsibly tell people that. It can however it would generally be expected that it provides a reason. A reason that is logically consistent with observed reality would probably be preferable. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. (It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having to go to court over it...) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. (It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having to go to court over it...) Actually we have no idea if we are able to agree. Since we've only every looked at specific proposals rather than the general case for any given medium. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows people who consider the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to actually be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from incorporating these changes, thus reducing the likelihood that third parties will come along and use these changes without attribution. 1) I would suggest that the number of people who care strongly about the particular license used and consider such a switch to be a detriment is small indeed. This isn't to say that this group should be ignored, only that they aren't going to represent a community with enough viability to sustain a project the size of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia. I guess if you think the legal case is cut and dry those 10% could get together and initiate a class-action lawsuit, or something, but forking is probably easier and more effective. Forking may certainly be easier, but it's hard for me to imagine that a fork of Wikipedia with 10% of it's population (and I posit that to be a high estimate) will be viable. A slogan of knowledge is free, but reusing it is more difficult because of our stringent attitudes towards attribution isn't going to inspire too many donors when fundraising time rolls around. A free encyclopedia without the plagiarism would be a better slogan, though I'm sure a little thought could produce an even better one. Plus, Wikipedia's database (I assume you only want to fork Wikipedia, and maybe only the English one) is non-negligible and will cost money to have hosted. Depends on the traffic. Pure hard drive space is relatively cheap. More traffic would lead to more expense, but it'd also likely lead to more donations. Fewer people will use the fork and it will grow more slowly, if it grows at all, because of licensing problems with content use and reuse. What licensing problems? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. (It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having to go to court over it...) Therein lies the problem with using terms like reasonable in a legal document. It's a subjective term, and there are plenty of definitions that are going to work for some people and not others. Arguing over what is and what is not reasonable is a wasted exercise: The best we can do it put the issue to a vote and go with the opinion expressed by the voting majority. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable' expressed in this thread indicate a need for a more explicit approach. Whether such different perceptions are as wide-spread in the broader author community as they are here is not clear. I will begin thinking about how a consultative survey could be constructed to help inform the process in a timely fashion. -- 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: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. (It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having to go to court over it...) Therein lies the problem with using terms like reasonable in a legal document. It's a subjective term, and there are plenty of definitions that are going to work for some people and not others. Arguing over what is and what is not reasonable is a wasted exercise: The best we can do it put the issue to a vote and go with the opinion expressed by the voting majority. That's the epitome of tyranny of the majority. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to the medium or means? The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable' expressed in this thread indicate a need for a more explicit approach. There is nothing you can do that will remove that from the crediting clause. Whatever you try to require there will always be a reasonable to the medium or means filter between you and the reuser. Trying to engineer around it would be unwise. Whether such different perceptions are as wide-spread in the broader author community as they are here is not clear. And unimportant. The license doesn't take into consideration what the authors consider reasonable to the medium or means. I will begin thinking about how a consultative survey could be constructed to help inform the process in a timely fashion. I would suggest that first you try and produce a halfway valid justification for the 5 name+url proposal before we waste time putting it out to a survey. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia. You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content. That said, I look forward to your fork. Why wait? Why don't you start now? You clearly are dissatisfied with Wikipedia's implementation of GFDL as well as Wikipedia's proposed use of CC-BY-SA. It should be easy, since you throw around the word fork so easily. You could probably squash us even more effectively than Citizendium and Knol have. (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.) A free encyclopedia without the plagiarism would be a better slogan, though I'm sure a little thought could produce an even better one. You are a marketing genius. Depends on the traffic. Pure hard drive space is relatively cheap. More traffic would lead to more expense, but it'd also likely lead to more donations. You obviously have this all figured out. I can't wait to see your fork. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Thomas Dalton writes: So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.) It all boils down to how you define reasonable, and that's usually left to laymen, not lawyers. If Anthony used the word reasonable in relation to this distinction, I missed it. In any case, it's not forbidden for lawyers to have intuitions about what is reasonable. In general, lawyers have the same prerogatives as laymen in this regard. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's an offline copy isn't? Online when there's an offline copy clearly isn't okay. Clearly because you have a legal right that distinguishes between online copies and offline copies? Please explain. (Once again, I'm asking about legal rights because you claim to be basing your objections on your rights.) What is the legal distinction you're drawing here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.) Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights. How are you distinguishing between moral rights and legal rights? A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that recognize moral rights. But the distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click away, in the other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing in a url, and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that. So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis for objecting to that form of attribution? Additionally, printed copies will almost surely last longer than the url remains accessible. With online copies, the url can be updated if it moves, or the page can be copied to the local server if the remote one goes down. Thank you for articulating an advantage to using URLs. The advantage of course applies both to online and offline copies. But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not* direct? What is the legal (or rights) basis for this distinction? Common sense? So you're saying your legal rights are defined by common sense? Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: Thomas Dalton writes: So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.) It all boils down to how you define reasonable, and that's usually left to laymen, not lawyers. If Anthony used the word reasonable in relation to this distinction, I missed it. In any case, it's not forbidden for lawyers to have intuitions about what is reasonable. In general, lawyers have the same prerogatives as laymen in this regard. The license uses the word reasonable and Anthony is talking about what is acceptable under the license. Of course, lawyers can have views on reasonableness, but they do so in their capacity as people, not lawyers. (There's a joke there, but I'm not going to stoop that low.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
geni writes: (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.) Nope. The to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories is acceptable if there are more than five authors. bit will mean that it is imposable for wikipedia to take content from Citizendium without Citizendium adopting some very strange TOS specifically for the benefit of wikipedia which I would rather doubt it would do. Even that would not make it possible to copy content on Citizendium to wikipedia at the moment were the 5 names +URL proposal to be enacted. I don't regard the 5 names+URL implementation proposal to be written in stone. We might choose to modify it (by, e.g., increasing the number of names, or allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed) based on feedback here and elsewhere. But the aspect of the license update has always been to maximize the extent to which Wikipedia can import and export CC-BY-SA-licensed content. Citizendium uses a CC-BY-SA 3.0 (unported) license already. Presumably Citizendium wants both to import and export CC-BY-SA content. Any implementation by us that would require us to ask Citizendium for some kind of exemption -- which I agree would be unlikely -- is out of the question. Note that I used the word easier, which is a comparative, rather than easy, which is an absolute. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Erik Moeller wrote: For example, if WMF decides that a guaranteed by-name attribution is not reasonable, scalable, and detrimental to the goals of WMF, it can responsibly tell people that. People who have made past edits could be given the option to have _those_ edits always attributed by name. The community could gradually factor out those edits if it considers them to be cumbersome. Let me just humbly ask you. Would it be detrimental to the goals of the WMF, if people re-using WMF content could do so in a way that would make the content impossible to use in any jurisdiction where moral rights obtain? I ask only in a search for clarity on this issue. 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] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's opt-out if probably won't make things much easier. Why? If we assert a default sense of the community that the URL is reasonable, and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect any author's rights or property? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's opt-out if probably won't make things much easier. Why? If we assert a default sense of the community that the URL is reasonable, and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect any author's rights or property? Either it's reasonable, or it's not. If you feel the need to give people the option of opting out, then obviously you think it isn't reasonable. Also, why should people that have edited in the past and then moved on not get the same rights as current editors? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Re-licensing (Import)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:58:31 -0800 From: Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 55aa3395-ec88-4ec2-8d36-efda1967a...@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes geni writes: (BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.) Nope. The to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories is acceptable if there are more than five authors. bit will mean that it is imposable for wikipedia to take content from Citizendium without Citizendium adopting some very strange TOS specifically for the benefit of wikipedia which I would rather doubt it would do. Even that would not make it possible to copy content on Citizendium to wikipedia at the moment were the 5 names +URL proposal to be enacted. I don't regard the 5 names+URL implementation proposal to be written in stone. We might choose to modify it (by, e.g., increasing the number of names, or allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed) based on feedback here and elsewhere. But the aspect of the license update has always been to maximize the extent to which Wikipedia can import and export CC-BY-SA-licensed content. Citizendium uses a CC-BY-SA 3.0 (unported) license already. Presumably Citizendium wants both to import and export CC-BY-SA content. Any implementation by us that would require us to ask Citizendium for some kind of exemption -- which I agree would be unlikely -- is out of the question. May I repeat: It is the right of the author and only of the author to choose the way the attribution is made according the CC-BY-SA license. You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution (Attribution Parties) in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and, consistent with Section 3(b) in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., French translation of the Work by Original Author, or Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner The original Author/Licensor has to designate an attribution party and to specify an URI as attribution. His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely. This means: If Wikipedia wants to import standard CC-BY-SA content with the name of the author as attribution scheme it is NOT possible to apply the 5 authors rule for this content. Author's name has to be mentioned even if 1000 other contributors work on the Wikipedia article - not for eternity but 70 years after his death. In this case re-users cannot choose the link-to-a-name-list-rule. If such imported authors have special conditions - why not give them to all Wikipedia contributors? Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's opt-out if probably won't make things much easier. Why? If we assert a default sense of the community that the URL is reasonable, and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect any author's rights or property? Either it's reasonable, or it's not. If you feel the need to give people the option of opting out, then obviously you think it isn't reasonable. Also, why should people that have edited in the past and then moved on not get the same rights as current editors? No, I think it is reasonable. If I were the License Czar we'd just do that and be done with it. But this is a community, with some people with aggressively diverse opinions. Imposing from above without flexibility causes pain and suffering and hurt feelings and people leaving the project and firey poo-flinging monkeys on UFOs to descend from the heavens. I think that overall, we have to do something like the proposed CC-BY-SA-3.0 details to balance author, reader, project, and content reuser interests, and I believe that that's ultimately not negotiable. Optimizing the implementation of BY so that people who agree that GFDL - CC is good but who disagree on the BY credit-by-web approach can still stay included, while still balancing reader and project and content reuser needs with author needs, is a good thing. A default to the reasonable approach, with exception allowed for objectors, works fine for that. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: If we assert a default sense of the community that the URL is reasonable, and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect any author's rights or property? Either it's reasonable, or it's not. If you feel the need to give people the option of opting out, then obviously you think it isn't reasonable. Also, why should people that have edited in the past and then moved on not get the same rights as current editors? Essentially, by doing this, you'd be saying: We disagree with you, but we're not interested in engaging in a prolonged battle over perceived author rights in a massively collaborative work with you. So if you really have a beef with our attribution model, which is the result of many months of deliberation and consultation, you can use this setting to be attributed in a way for your past edits that's consistent with your perception and beliefs about what rights you have retained under the terms of use in the past. However, we think that the notion that print-outs of massively collaborative works should carry author attribution over multiple pages, that spoken versions should contain many seconds of text-to-speech generated author lists, that indeed any re-user will have to worry about this problem, is completely counter to the principles of free culture. So, for your past edits, please click this button. We will always attribute you by name as long as we use your text, and we will probably remove your edits over time. For your future edits, we've made it abundantly clear that this isn't something we believe is required or needed. If you think it is, please contribute somewhere else. It would be, IMO, a completely defensible way to deal with a situation where a minority is trying to impose standards on an entire community which are counter to its objectives. I'm not necessarily saying that this reflects the situation we have today: I don't know how widespread the belief in the need for distribution of excessive author metadata is. I think it would be worth the effort to find out. It's my personal belief that such metadata requirements are harmful examples of non-free licensing terms, and I would be surprised to see many people defend excessive attribution as in the http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4Cpg=PT979#PPT959,M1 example (even if it's aesthetically well done and obviously pleasing to lots of German mothers). The above solution would still result in the odd situation where the article on [[France]] would say: 'See (url) for a list of authors, including Foo and Bar'. But that is a problem that could be solved over time by removing those people's contributions. It seems to me that, essentially, some people have been operating under the assumption that they are contributing in a fashion that would make the resulting work effectively non-free in much the same way other onerous restrictions do. It's too bad that they've made that assumption, given how strongly and clearly we've always emphasized the principles of freedom. I think it would be fully ethically and legally defensible to ignore this assumption as incorrect and unreasonable, but it would be nicer (and possibly less noisy) to accommodate these people as much as reasonably possible while explaining that the 'free' in 'free encyclopedia' is inconsistent with hassling re-users about the inclusion of kilobytes worth of largely meaningless author metadata. I'm not advocating one path over another at this point, though. Flexible and vague clauses can work well when you're dealing with issues with few stakeholders who all have a shared and tacit understanding of what they want to accomplish. By definition, massive collaboration isn't such a situation: any one of hundreds or thousands of contributors to a document can behave unreasonably, interpreting rules to the detriment of others. The distributed ownership of copyright to a single work is an example of what Michael Heller calls 'gridlock' or an 'anticommons'. Ironically, even with free content licenses, the gridlock effects of copyright can still come into play. I believe it's our obligation to give our reusers protection from being hassled by people insisting on heavy attribution requirements, and to create consistency in reuse guidelines. Really, WMF and its chapters can hardly develop partnerships with content reusers if we can't give clarity on what's required of them. A great deal of free information reuse may not be happening because of fear, uncertainty and doubt. I would much rather remove all doubt that our content is free to be reused without onerous restrictions. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing (Import)
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.comwrote: His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely. And it will be... in the edit summary for the import which is in turn referenced either directly or indirectly in the attribution. The critical difference is that unlike your average Wikipedian, this author didn't deliberately and knowingly contribute to a collaborative effort and in doing so waive any real possibility of a meaningful attribution. So what's the better evil? Dealing with this once on the way in (that is, pinging the original author regarding your intention to include their content in a wiki where it will be relentlessly edited and reused with diluted attribution) or externalising the effort for all of our [re]users (and their [re]users and so on) forever by 'polluting' the article with a myriad differing long-lived attribution demands? Note that Citizendium have been doing something like what is proposed for ages (you must attribute the *Citizendium* and link to http://www.citizendium.org/ as well as the relevant *Citizendium* article), *including* for Wikipedia articles (Some content on this page may previously have [appeared on Wikipedia]). The sky hasn't fallen on them yet. Sam 1. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Reusing_Citizendium_Content ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
E our attribution model, which is the
result of many months of deliberation and consultation,
Evidences?
However, we think that the notion that print-outs of massively
collaborative works should carry author attribution over multiple
pages, that spoken versions should contain many seconds of
text-to-speech generated author lists, that indeed any re-user will
have to worry about this problem, is completely counter to the
principles of free culture.
{{fact}}
So, for your past edits, please click this
button. We will always attribute you by name as long as we use your
text, and we will probably remove your edits over time.
Questionable. For example the heavily edited [[Siege]] has text that
is recognizably mine from 2004.
It would be, IMO, a completely defensible way to deal with a situation
where a minority is trying to impose standards on an entire community
which are counter to its objectives. I'm not necessarily saying that
this reflects the situation we have today: I don't know how widespread
the belief in the need for distribution of excessive author metadata
is. I think it would be worth the effort to find out. It's my personal
belief that such metadata requirements are harmful examples of
non-free licensing terms, and I would be surprised to see many people
defend excessive attribution as in the
http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4Cpg=PT979#PPT959,M1
example (even if it's aesthetically well done and obviously pleasing
to lots of German mothers).
Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there
since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about
50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I
find it questionable that that would count as an improvement.
Hmm it has pics as well attaching urls to the pics instead of author
nics actively makes things worse.
The above solution would still result in the odd situation where the
article on [[France]] would say: 'See (url) for a list of authors,
including Foo and Bar'. But that is a problem that could be solved
over time by removing those people's contributions. It seems to me
that, essentially, some people have been operating under the
assumption that they are contributing in a fashion that would make the
resulting work effectively non-free in much the same way other onerous
restrictions do. It's too bad that they've made that assumption, given
how strongly and clearly we've always emphasized the principles of
freedom.
The phrase Reasonable to the medium or means in the CC license
pretty much makes what you suggest impossible using credits. If you
want to do that copyright notices are a far better attack line.
Flexible and vague clauses can work well when you're dealing with
issues with few stakeholders who all have a shared and tacit
understanding of what they want to accomplish. By definition, massive
collaboration isn't such a situation: any one of hundreds or thousands
of contributors to a document can behave unreasonably, interpreting
rules to the detriment of others. The distributed ownership of
copyright to a single work is an example of what Michael Heller calls
'gridlock' or an 'anticommons'. Ironically, even with free content
licenses, the gridlock effects of copyright can still come into play.
If you think CC licenses don't have large flexible and vague areas you
haven't read them or have a poor understanding of international IP
law.
I believe it's our obligation to give our reusers protection from
being hassled by people insisting on heavy attribution requirements,
and to create consistency in reuse guidelines.
Those two directly contradict.
Really, WMF and its
chapters can hardly develop partnerships with content reusers if we
can't give clarity on what's required of them.
You cannot give clarity for them whatever you do. You are not a
government. The cost however of your attempt would be that wikipedia
is unable to be a reuser.
A great deal of free
information reuse may not be happening because of fear, uncertainty
and doubt.
may. So speculation.
I would much rather remove all doubt that our content is
free to be reused without onerous restrictions.
You might want to but there is no way you can actually do it. There is
very little caselaw when it comes to free licenses (heh we can't even
show that CC licenses are something that can be meaningfully agreed to
in say France).
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
What is the legal distinction you're drawing here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.) Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights. How are you distinguishing between moral rights and legal rights? A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that recognize moral rights. Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. But the distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click away, in the other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing in a url, and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that. So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis for objecting to that form of attribution? Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture. But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not* direct? What is the legal (or rights) basis for this distinction? Common sense? So you're saying your legal rights are defined by common sense? To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal rights can't be understood without employing common sense. Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument? I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org: Anthony writes: Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia. You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content. I think it's obvious Anthony means almost all new Wikipedia content - CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense? Thanks. By new Wikipedia content I meant content first contributed to Wikipedia. To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now. 1) I never said I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable. *IF* more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I think a fork would be viable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have? Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture. Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a credit card (I assume you mean credit). They may negotiate for such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence of a contract. So you're saying your legal rights are defined by common sense? To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal rights can't be understood without employing common sense. They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
Anthony writes: A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have? Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture. Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a credit card (I assume you mean credit). They may negotiate for such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence of a contract. So you're saying your legal rights are defined by common sense? To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal rights can't be understood without employing common sense. They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com: Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about 50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I find it questionable that that would count as an improvement. A single URL could point to a list of all contributors for all articles. I agree that under the proposed principles of attribution, a lot of individual names would still have to be included, though probably far fewer than right now. (They could actually be more visibly included as 'credit: foo, bar' under the articles, which IMO underscores that the proposed regime, where direct credit is given, encourages it to be more visible and significant.) One of the interesting things about the German book is that it's a collection of many thousands of tiny article summaries, which still triggers the worst of any attribution regime that requires direct name attribution. I do agree with you, Mike and others who have pointed out that we want to retain flexibility in application. I'm not arguing for absolutely rigid attribution requirements, and to the extent that the current proposal suggests that, it should be revised. I am, however, arguing for articulating principles and demonstrating them through guidelines and examples, so that there's no ambiguity about our general understanding of what we mean with reasonable applications. -- 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: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony writes: A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be. This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not recognize moral rights, then you don't have them, by definition. In ethics, A moral right is a morally justified claim. A legal right is a legally justified claim. When one uses the term right without specifying the nature of the justification, one usually means a moral right. ( http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/glossary.aspx?letter=R) Confusing, perhaps, since the term moral rights (almost always plural) has another definition in copyright law. Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture. Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a credit card (I assume you mean credit). They may negotiate for such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence of a contract. In the absence of a contract, there wouldn't be a film. And no, I mean credit card, as in a type of title card. It's film jargon, derived no doubt by the fact that they used to be printed on cards. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony writes: Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution. Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not have it. Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse. How in the world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that? Seriously, that's appalling. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Re-licensing
By repeating false things they will be not more true. IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE. This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE. Wikipedia hasn't such a thing. Attribution in the GNU FDL is done by copyright notices or the section called History. 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 1.3 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. This means: Follwowing this way of attribution the name of the autor can never dissapear. Verbatim copying: You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the COPYRIGHT NOTICES, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies (my empasis). Modification: D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. Important is the following clause: 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. (my emphasis) It is possible to ignore this? I do not think so. There is a strong obligation that every GFDL document which is modified must have a section entitled History. The only thing in the Wikipedia which can be regarded as a section history is the version history which is also the way in which authors are given credit. One entry with the name/IP of the contributor and the date in the version history has two functions: 1. it is a substitution of the copyright noctice, 2. it is part of the section history. A lot of people in the German Wikipedia believe that the only way to fulfill the GFDL strictly is to reproduce the whole version history resp. the names of all contributors. Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band was a cooperation between Bertelsmann and the German chapter. It has a long list of ALL contributors see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4Cpg=PT979 The Directmedia Offline Wikipedia CDs/DVDs have reproductions of the version histories. I would like to say one thing very clear: IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT A THIRD PARTY RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE WAY OF ATTRIBUTION IN THE CC-BY-SA LICENSE. The attribution in the GFDL is described by the license. WMF or FSF has NO RIGHT to choose a specific interpretation. WMF has NO RIGHT to relicense the old content according to the proposed Copyright Policy containing the CC-BY-SA attribution expectations. Each user has to agree EXPLICITELY to the Copyright Policy as part of the contract between the WMF and him. May be it is legal to make this agreement valid for older contributions of the same user. But the policy cannot bind users no more active. Third party CC-BY-SA text content cannot be imported if there is'nt an EXPLICITE statement that the creator allows the attribution policy. It is possible to substitude the normal attribution by giving instead an internet adress BUT ONLY THE CREATOR CAN CHOOSE THIS POSSIBILITY. If you will import CC-BY-SA content you have to obey the author's way of attribution. If there is no specification the name has to be mentioned. For this contribution the attribution policy (incl. link to a list of authors if more than five) ISN'T VALID! Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Re-licensing
2009/1/21 Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com: IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE. This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE. Wikipedia hasn't such a thing. I've already explained our position on this issue in the prior thread on the topic; we do not share the interpretation that the change tracking obligations in the GFDL are relevant to the attribution terms we use under CC-BY-SA; we do believe that the principal authors requirement and the established practices regarding re-use under the GFDL are relevant. The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we consider to be legally defensible parameters. Erik -- 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
