Talk:Licensing update/Questions and Answers/Archives/2008

Formatting

A formatting gripe. The ;term :definition syntax is a pretty gross way to format an entire page. I added some section headings for ease of reading and editing but I would recommend removing the existing syntax and just making the questions bold. --pfctdayelise 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this comment and thus removed the definition list syntax, plus enclosed quotations in the quote template, but Cbrown1023 completely reverted. I will stay away but I wish people cared more about the logicality of syntax and accessibility . . . --Aotake 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to read in the way that you suggested. However, I didn't notice the use of {{quote}}. Feel free to add that back in, but please update the translations as well. Cbrown1023 talk 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who should be attributed?

Under the "BY" component, who will Wikipedia be requesting be attributed? "Wikipedia"? "Wikimedia Foundation"? "X, Y, Z and N anonymous editors" where X, Y and Z are the usernames of those who have edited the article?

If the last, then what about bots and maintenance edits? Can a user opt out of being attributed on specific edits if they want, or would they have to sign out for that? How, technically, would such a list be (automatically?) created for each article and kept up to date? Mike Peel 08:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that individual editors should receive attribution under GFDL is a misconception. Editors are not authors, but collaborators, equivalent to employees rather than independent contractors. My guess is that nothing will change, attribution remains due to the project as a whole. Licenses don't have the power to change the law, and attribution is therefore not a reason to move IMHO. Guido den Broeder 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

All editors hold copyright. (Important: Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation does not hold copyright of contents. See en:Wikipedia:Copyright for details) It will be better to attribute all editors but it can be difficult to attribute all users. I think Reuser should link to Wikipedia's article so others can see editors' name who provided contents.--Kwj2772 15:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, what the page says is that you keep any copyrights that you already had. You don't gain new rights by editing a page on Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside GFDL (my understanding was that attribution was required, but never mind), that's certainly not the case with CC. That has a specific byline, which needs to be stated (although it can be different for each thing). See e.g. File:Old_horse_cart_at_Snowshill_Manor.jpg, random picture of mine, released under CC-BY-SA with a given attribution line. There is some flexibility in what this can be; it could just be "Wikipedia", or it could be something more complicated including the user names. That's something that needs to be decided by the WMF / the community.

So, to rephrase, under CC-BY-SA what will the required byline be? If there are multiple possibilities, what are they?

My personal view is that the editors of that page should be attributed, if possible ordered by the amount of the content that they have created (i.e. by amount of text that they have written, minus that which has been severely rewritten or removed). Then have the attribution line being something like: "Wikipedia: Author 1, Author 2, ..., Author N and X anonymous editors", allowing for abbreviations if needed (e.g. "Wikipedia: Author 1, Author 2, Author 3 et al." or "and N others" instead of et al.) You can probably guess that this comes from an academic-oriented viewpoint. Mike Peel 17:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like support Mike's point of view: Three most important authors and «et al.». That is how it works in libraries, book shops, etc. --Eruedin 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not, but the comparison is useless. WP does not have individual authors. Guido den Broeder 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why move?

This could have a more appealing title. And the problem could be described first, not everyone is familiar with the issue (don't even now that WP has GFDL now). By the way, sometimes the text talks about "migration", sometimes about "licensing update". There should be chosen a label under which the thing can be sold to the people best. / And I would not use quotes to explain something the Q&A-Text should tell by itself.--Ziko 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

10 Why GFDL initially?

I believe that this is merely repeating what has been said before.--Ziko 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice the date for eligibility of relicensable

I am really sorry, you have lost me somewhere there. Could this be explained in easier words and in a different structure? Like: This is the problem, and this is our solution.--Ziko 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

How will we have community-wide-referendum? individually or globally? I think the referendum will be held individually because all contributor hold copyright. (en:WP:COPY#Contributors' rights and obligations). I wonder if migration to CC will be done individually or globally. Thank you.--Kwj2772 09:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Hey everyone, I was looking at the new license and I noticed something that we may be able to use to make our lives easier. Under the Share Alike info it says. "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." The key in my opinion, is the last part a "similar or a compatible license" now I remember reading a while ago on the CC website that they had not yet approved any similar or a compatible licenses, but I was wondering if it would be possible for the FSW and CC to make an agreement to make the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 a "compatible license" with CC-BY-SA which would allow content that is licensed CC-BY-SA to also be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License with the GNU Free Documentation License being approved as a compatible license which means that you can satify the SA condition by licensing the work under the GNU Free Documentation License and that would allow free switching between both licenses, which would still allow us to import content from wikis that still use the GNU Free Documentation License like Medpedia and would allow us to completely Dual License everything that we import from CC-BY-SA sites. Thought? All the Best, --Mifter 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But FSF wants GFDL content (software documentation) not to be converted in CC content... This is the scope of the 1st November limit. --Nemo 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)