[cc-licenses] CC-BY of Wiki-Content - must I name ALL authors?
evan at bad.dynu.ca
Wed Oct 5 13:42:31 EDT 2005
On Wed, 2005-05-10 at 17:57 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> It may be a judgment call in some cases who the "original author" is,
> but there is clearly no need to attribute multiple individuals.
A wiki page is the endpoint of a number of derivative works creations.
Let's say that you start a wiki page; and I later edit the page. The
edited page is a derivative work*. If it's licensed under the same
license (not necessarily the case with cc-by, but let's gloss over that
for now), my derivative work requires attribution to me, and my use of
your work in making that derivative requires attribution to you.
If Rob Myers edits the new page, that's a third work -- derivative of
both mine and yours. Lather, Rinse, Repeat 50-100 times, and you've got
a lot of people getting attribution.
Which is the Right Thing, when you think of it. What's the value in
screwing over some of the contributors? Is it really fair to give Rob
credit (author of most recent work) and not you and I? To give you
credit (author of first work) and not me or Rob?
On Wikitravel, we give credit to all authors, and in practise it's
entirely manageable. If there's a problem, you can do the designated
attribution as in the 2.5 licenses.
* It's also possible to think of wiki pages as co-authorship between
numerous editors (as if they collaborated on the work in private and
later published it as a group). I don't think that model stands up to
scrutiny, though, for most public wikis. There's the linear nature of
wiki editing (version follows version follows version), the publication
of the interim versions, and the lack of any other coordination between
editors. In any event, if you think of wiki editing as the same
co-authorship, you still need to give attribution to all the co-authors.
Evan Prodromou <evan at bad.dynu.ca>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses