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

Cc cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 19 03:01:36 EDT 2013

On 18/09/2013 23:07, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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

I wouldn't take a WP page to reliable about anything. It may be being 
rewritten as we speak, it doesn't constrain any of their activity.

>> 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.

Each of which will have a publishers - the URI in effect.

>> 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.

When I put content ob website X I'm primarily doing so on that website. 
Especially so if the content is collaborative, then I am collaborating 
with the community on X at a specific time. My home for the content is 
X, I may well have built some online presence that involves X. If some 
years later a group decide they don't like X and want to move the 
content elsewhere then part of the attribution for whatever content I 
added is X. I don't think one can divorce the X antecedence without 
breaking the attribution. If I'm adding images somewhere then my 
preferred attribution is 'Cc - website' as that effectively 
distinguishes which Cc amongst all other Cc's there may be.

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

The unstability of URIs be true (I think its about 77 days on average), 
and many of the WP links are dead, but that doesn't  mean that the URI 
isn't useful in providing a means of distinguishing between one John 
Smith and another John Smith.

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list