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

Cc cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 19 16:17:28 EDT 2013


On 18/09/2013 23:19, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
 > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Cc <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 >> 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.
 >
 > Who says sparkly the undertaker has ever edited Wikipedia? There are
 > tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia (since you've picked that
 > as an example) which were copied from elsewhere under acceptable
 > licensing.

Do you reference back to where you took the content from? If NO then why
not?

I ask this as WP tends to ignore any licensing provisions it doesn't
agree with. For example there is the issue with attribution of images
on wikipedia pages. These are unattributed on wikipedia pages that use
them there is simply a link to Commons, which wikipedians maintain is a
separate site from en.wikipedia. The reuse on en.wikipedia should be
providing attribution on the page where the usage is, and not relying on
some third party to do the attribution for them.

Over on Commons they are busy editing out copyright watermarks from
images, an issue that has made one large German image contributor cease
making images available under CC licenses


 >
 >> not then you are stuffed and rightly so.
 >
 > Not "and rightly so", there could be hundreds of contributors to a
 > work. Being unable to move the work to a new host because a couple of
 > them are unlocatable is not a desirable licensing outcome.

Nothing is stopping you from copying it to a different site. You just
need to reference back to where you originally got it from.



 >
 > I'm actually unable to tell from your example which of the readings of
 > the behavior you've adopted.
 >
 > Sparkly the undertaker writes an article on planetmath (with
 > cc-by-sa-3.0 style tos attribution to planetmath).
 >
 > Elvis copies it into a wikipedia article, combining it with existing
 > work and adding to it, along with many other people. (with
 > Cc-By-Sa-3.0 style ToS attribution that attribution be to Wikipedia)
 >
 > Nathan forks the article off and puts it in MathWiz wiki where some
 > more people, including many but not all of the WP editors, edit on it.
 > (with CC-By-Sa-3.0 style ToS requirements that attribution be to
 > MathWizWiki)
 >
 > The wikipedia version of the article gets deleted due to some
 > complicated wikipedia politics.
 >
 > Murdoch excerpts from MathWiz in his newspapers. What URI(s) must he
 > list with the work?

Presumably all of them.  Its the cost of using CC licensed works that
have been dragged around TEH INTERNETZ.

As a reuser you have the obligation of attributing all the contributors.

Really this seems to be based on some snit between two wikis and I don't
see why the licenses should be changed to favour one side or the other.

Besides most CC content is not produced by CC-BY-SA wikis with 100s of
contributors but by individuals or a small number (less than 10) of
collaborators. Why should the licenses be warped to cater for a what is
in reality a minority interest?




 >
 > All of them? In which case you have a ever-growing wallet of barnacles
 > encrusting the work.  Actually copying the work becomes difficult in
 > practice because none of the steps along the way collected the
 > required URLs in a usable form, they're just burred in some article
 > history. The WP URI would be no longer functional, and would be a link
 > back to a party that had pissed off some portion of the authors by
 > virtue of deleting their work.

Why are you even bothering to use licenses at all as it appears that you
just want to ignore the bits of the license you consider onerous.

If you use CC licenses there are certain costs involved part of that
cost is to provide URIs for the works you are using or building upon.






More information about the cc-licenses mailing list