[cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Wed Sep 18 18:07:18 EDT 2013


On 18/09/13 02:39 PM, Cc wrote:
> 
> Life is messy. Dealing with multiple people is messy.

Standard licenses reducing the costs and uncertainty of doing so is a
good thing.

> If I were to copy a bunch of wikipedia articles and simply list the 
> authors: sparky-the-undertaker, elvis has left the building, etc, etc. 
> With no mention that the original was once on wikipedia I'm certain that 
> the wikipedia community will be a bitchin n moaning about that.

They wouldn't have any basis to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content#Re-use_of_text_under_Creative_Commons_Attribute_Share-Alike

> The issue with attribution is that "sparky-the-undertaker" is the WP 
> author not some one that goes by the same name on some other site. Even 
> worse if the material is copied from site WP to site B and there ever 
> exists on site B some one called "sparky-the-undertaker" who is not the 
> same as the site WP person then the authorship has effectively been 
> re-assigned.

There is more than one author of books called John Smith.

> I think that if you can get all the contributors of a work to agree to a 
> new URI then fine, if not then you are stuffed and rightly so.

Possibly.

But if Wikipedia had to move to wikipedia.nocensorship.net, it's not
clear what would be righteous about them being stuffed.

History shows that URIs are not stable, and copyright doesn't decrease
in duration.



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list