IRC office hours/Office hours 2009-10-15

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Oct 15 09:03:21 <cary> If you'd like to ask Mike a question, please preface it with QUESTION:
Oct 15 09:03:23 <cary> like so:
Oct 15 09:03:32 <mnemonic1> now the francophones will outnumber the deutschsprachers
Oct 15 09:03:34 <cary> QUESTION: How is your cat today, Mike?
Oct 15 09:03:54 <mnemonic1> she is quite irritatingly hyper this morning, thanks
Oct 15 09:03:54 <cary> mnemonic1, I have a question from Mike Peel
Oct 15 09:04:04 <cary> actually, two questions
Oct 15 09:04:15 <cary> <mpeel> cary: I have two questions for Mike, both of which are fairly generic. The first is with Wikimedia project related domain names - what will the WMF be doing to secure these, both those that are currently unregistered and those that are squatted? The second is with trademark and license violations: what is the WMF's approach to dealing with these when it hears about them?
Oct 15 09:04:36 <yannf> was the issue about the Burning Man and IOC images already discussed?
Oct 15 09:04:47 * Vous vous appelez maintenant cary-afk
Oct 15 09:05:22 <Philippe|Wiki> yannf, not yet.
Oct 15 09:05:26 <Philippe|Wiki> but that can be next :)
Oct 15 09:05:52 <mnemonic1> for mike peel: WMF is picking and choosing which domain names to fight over (with regard to squatters). our actual domain-name acquisition is handled by the tech team on an ad-hoc basis (as needed).
Oct 15 09:06:39 <mnemonic1> with regard to trademark violations -- we can't go after every infringer, so we try to pick the worst ones, or the ones where fighting a case will send a good message
Oct 15 09:06:54 * Vous vous appelez maintenant cary
Oct 15 09:06:58 <mnemonic1> nobody requires that you hammer every infringer
Oct 15 09:07:17 <mnemonic1> we just have to make a good faith effort to defend our trademarks to the extent possible
Oct 15 09:07:29 <mnemonic1> (which basically means, working within my department's budget)
Oct 15 09:08:11 <mnemonic1> philippe, i will handle yannf's question now
Oct 15 09:08:38 <Philippe|Wiki> (Thanks, Mike, Cary's actually playing moderator when he's not 'afk'.... I'm just here for the show)
Oct 15 09:08:57 * cary hands Philippe|Wiki some popcorn
Oct 15 09:09:10 <mnemonic1> with regard to "Burning Man" -- the issue there properly is whether Wikimedia Foundation feels obligated to police photographs on Commons or elsewhere that were taken in violation of the Burning Man rules
Oct 15 09:09:25 <mnemonic1> the short answer is, no, we are not party to that contract or its obligations.
Oct 15 09:09:57 <mnemonic1> so long as we don't encourage or collaborate with people who choose to violate their ticket contracts by taking unauthorized photos, we generally don't face legal liability for publishing them
Oct 15 09:10:11 <mnemonic1> the answer with regard to IOC is essentially the same
Oct 15 09:10:35 <mnemonic1> there's no copyright violation with regard to those photos, since the copyright is held by the photographer
Oct 15 09:11:02 <mnemonic1> it should be noted that WMF has not received any complaints from Burning Man or IOC during my tenure
Oct 15 09:11:25 <mnemonic1> and i've now been with WMF for more than two years, which shows you how much time flies when you're having fun
Oct 15 09:11:41 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 09:11:52 <yannf> I don't worry much that WMFwill get sue by the IOC, but I worry that the photographer gets problems *because* we publish his images
Oct 15 09:12:24 <mnemonic1> well, it's up to the photographer to gauge how much he wants to put himself at risk.
Oct 15 09:12:27 <yannf> that would be embarassing for us
Oct 15 09:12:50 <tgr> QUESTION: what should be done with content that is public domain in its country of origin, but not in the US? (due to URAA, for example)
Oct 15 09:13:13 <mnemonic1> i wouldn't feel embarrassed about that, any more than i would be embarrassed about a user's publishing personal information on his user talk page
Oct 15 09:13:35 <tgr> any chance the WMF will provide a way to make such content legal, by hosting a server in a country with rule of the shorter term or something like that?
Oct 15 09:13:42 <mnemonic1> that's a great question, tgr
        • ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Oct 15 09:14:52 2009
        • BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Oct 15 09:14:52 2009
Oct 15 09:15:34 <mnemonic1> my view is that if material is understood to be in the public domain in its country of origin, then it's probably okay for someone to risk posting it to a wikimedia project, provided that, if the copyright holder complains, invoking rights under US law, in a properly crafted DMCA takedown notice, we'll probably take it down
Oct 15 09:15:59 <mnemonic1> WMF is probably not going to host a server in another country just over copyright law concerns.
Oct 15 09:16:30 <mnemonic1> we're actually trying to minimize our infrastructure footprint to keep our legal liability low (by limiting jurisdiction)
Oct 15 09:16:55 <mnemonic1> while at the same time providing the best possible performance/lack of lag time
Oct 15 09:17:13 <Ziko> Question: Is it safe to say that the WMF is lucky to reside in the US, as other countries tend to be more strict or difficult regarding to copyright issues?
Oct 15 09:18:17 <mnemonic1> Ziko, in most respects, the legal framework in the USA gives us a greater degree of protection with regard to most legal issues. When it comes to copyright, so long as we obey the rules under the DMCA notice/takedown provisions, we're in good shape
Oct 15 09:18:47 <mnemonic1> but it should be noted that we rarely get DMCA takedown notices, because our community is generally pretty good at removing copyrighted material in advance of any formal complaint
Oct 15 09:19:04 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 09:19:17 <Ziko> ok, I see
Oct 15 09:19:30 <Philippe|Wiki> QUESTION: What do you like most about your job? Least?
Oct 15 09:19:37 <cary> oooh, good one
Oct 15 09:20:45 <tgr> QUESTION: the old GFDL license had an "or later" clause, CC only has one for derivative works. Does WMF have a strategy to handle this if a new CC version comes out and is more favorable for us?
Oct 15 09:20:47 <mnemonic1> there is so much about my job that i like, that it's hard to narrow it down. i certainly like the broad range of legal issues i get to deal with, from copyright to criminal law to defamation. plus, i do lots of legal work relating to our organizational functioning that you never see
Oct 15 09:21:12 <guillom> Philippe|Wiki, most: Wikimedians; least: Wikimedians ;)
Oct 15 09:22:47 <mnemonic1> what i like least -- well, i dislike it when people reflexively snipe at me and/or the foundation when we're really quite devoted to keeping the organization protected, growing, and developing. that's not a legal problem as such, but sometimes i have to "lay down the law" on this or that issue, which isn't always a popular thing to do
Oct 15 09:23:18 <Philippe|Wiki> ahh, good, thanks :)
Oct 15 09:23:37 <cary> mnemonic1, next question:
Oct 15 09:23:37 <cary> <tgr> QUESTION: the old GFDL license had an "or later" clause, CC only has one for derivative works. Does WMF have a strategy to handle this if a new CC version comes out and is more favorable for us?
Oct 15 09:23:50 <mnemonic1> tgr, the CC-BY-SA drafters have always intended that CC-BY-SA (implicitly or explicitly) be upgradeable, or so I understand
Oct 15 09:24:02 <mnemonic1> in fact that was one of the early concerns about the licensing change
Oct 15 09:24:25 <mnemonic1> some GFDL proponents were worried that CC-BY-SA might be modified at some future date to limit the freedom of the material
Oct 15 09:25:16 <tgr> mnemonic1, i dont know whether intent or mistake, but the text of the license is pretty clear
Oct 15 09:25:22 <tgr> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License.
Oct 15 09:25:32 <tgr> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;
Oct 15 09:25:42 <mnemonic1> right
Oct 15 09:25:58 <werdna> Well, you could easily add one word to the text and hen use it under the upgraded terms :)
Oct 15 09:26:06 <werdna> like, say, an extra space at the end :P
Oct 15 09:26:29 <mnemonic1> tgr, so far as i know, my answer is still correct as to the interpretation of CC-BY-SA
Oct 15 09:26:58 <mnemonic1> if you add something that doesn't remove "the same License Elements", that shouldn't be a problem
Oct 15 09:27:18 <mnemonic1> restricting freedom in any way would be, in effect, a violation of (ii)
Oct 15 09:28:26 <Ziko> Question: What if a print magazine wants to use a CC-BY-SA licensed picture? Does the whole article then have to be licensed the same way, or even the whole issue?
Oct 15 09:28:54 <mnemonic1> Ziko, in theory, the whole article, but not the whole issue
Oct 15 09:29:11 <mnemonic1> there's a lot of debate about edge cases with CC-BY-SA licensing
Oct 15 09:29:30 <mnemonic1> where you combine CC-BY-SA images with proprietary text, for example.
Oct 15 09:29:51 <Ziko> I have been asked recently by an editor, that's why I am asking
Oct 15 09:30:07 <mnemonic1> i don't pretend to know how these debates will end up, but i will note that there have been few if any actual disputes about this stuff
Oct 15 09:31:13 <mnemonic1> by "actual disputes" -- i mean, actual disputes over real creative works. of course there have been many disputes about potential theory and application
Oct 15 09:31:23 <Ziko> Someone saw that I put a pic on Commons and wanted to know what that relicensing means
Oct 15 09:31:45 <Amgine> QUESTION: What is the status of mark registrations?
Oct 15 09:32:07 <mnemonic1> Ziko, was it relicensing or just the original free licensing that they were asking about
Oct 15 09:32:26 <mnemonic1> Amgine, we have vastly increased trademark registrations, notably in europe
Oct 15 09:32:46 <mnemonic1> the most expensive place to pursue trademark registration, it turns out, though, is ... Mexico
Oct 15 09:32:48 <mnemonic1> who knew?
Oct 15 09:33:06 <Amgine> <grins>
Oct 15 09:33:13 <mnemonic1> i'm considering whether to push for PRC registration this year. (we already have registration in Taiwan)
Oct 15 09:33:31 <Ziko> If I understood well the person who wants to use that pic for something greater (in this case an article) has to license his own work he is bulding on the used item
Oct 15 09:33:34 <mnemonic1> we're obviously pushing registration in Argentina
Oct 15 09:33:48 <Ziko> that is what once a Dutch Wikimedian told me
Oct 15 09:33:56 <tgr> QUESTION: is there a rule of thumb for which laws are relevant for a work when some or all are different: the country where it was created, the country where the creator is/was a citizen, the country where it was first published, the country where WMF servers are hosted, the country were the uploader lives, the country where the readers live
Oct 15 09:34:16 <mnemonic1> Ziko, I don't really know the answer to that question, because it remains in dispute. i would direct the question to the CC people.
Oct 15 09:34:42 <mnemonic1> i will note that it is a longstanding issue. there's a lot of effort aimed at deciding what a compilation is, for example.
Oct 15 09:35:21 <Ziko> so the tricky question is what "deritative" means?
Oct 15 09:35:23 <mnemonic1> tgr, there is no single rule for what the applicable law is in a given dispute. it will vary according to the jurisdiction (and even the particular court) where you bring the case
Oct 15 09:35:40 <mnemonic1> Ziko, that's one tricky question, sure
Oct 15 09:36:03 <mnemonic1> my view is that an article illustrated by a free image is not a derivative work of that image, but some people may disagree
Oct 15 09:36:40 <Ziko> well, your view means a lot to me :-)
Oct 15 09:36:43 <mnemonic1> the nobel prize people illustrated some of their winners with Wikimedia Commons images, but nobody is asserting that nobelprize.org is now suddenly freely licensed, or that this particular announcement is
Oct 15 09:37:30 <mnemonic1> the main thing we have to think about when we freely license material is that we want to be maximally free for other people to use
Oct 15 09:37:52 <mnemonic1> we don't want people to be able to make it proprietary again by combining it with something else
Oct 15 09:37:56 <tgr> Ziko, Wikipedia's own position was (in the GFDL era) that articles and images are different works and so CC on an image doesnt infect the text
Oct 15 09:38:23 <mnemonic1> so a CC-BY-SA image can't be made proprietary by being used to illustrate a proprietary article
Oct 15 09:38:46 <mnemonic1> there's an argument that the purpose of free licensing is also to make everything it touches or it's used with also free
Oct 15 09:38:56 <mnemonic1> very strong copyleft
Oct 15 09:39:04 <Ziko> oh I see, the "bastard" question: what to do if the "parents" of a new work are under different licenses
Oct 15 09:39:31 <mnemonic1> but i think if we push copyleft that far, we provide a disincentive for people to use freely licensed creative works
Oct 15 09:39:52 <mnemonic1> i like a certain amount of virality, but i see the disincentives in radical virality
Oct 15 09:40:00 * Philippe|Wiki s'appelle maintenant Philippe|afk
Oct 15 09:40:06 <Ziko> so "does not infect", as tgr said
Oct 15 09:40:26 <mnemonic1> right, tgr's take is the same as mine (and the same as wikipedia has long held to be true)
Oct 15 09:40:34 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 09:40:40 <Ziko> thanks
Oct 15 09:41:10 <cary> more questions
Oct 15 09:41:11 <tgr> QUESTION: if something is factually true and neutrally worded, can it still be libel in the US?
Oct 15 09:41:25 <mnemonic1> no
Oct 15 09:41:38 <mnemonic1> it may be actionable for other reasons, but not as libel
Oct 15 09:41:45 <werdna> libel = demonstrably false
Oct 15 09:42:22 <mnemonic1> for example, there are some highly defined causes of action that are lumped together in the USA under "invasion of privacy"
Oct 15 09:42:58 <mnemonic1> you can say something that's technically true, but that creates a false impression and i can sue on that
Oct 15 09:43:26 <Ziko> like saying "this is the woman the priest presented to us as his domestic"
Oct 15 09:44:42 <mnemonic1> or "Mike Godwin routinely slept with an underage boy for years"
Oct 15 09:45:10 <mnemonic1> when the "underage boy" is my infant son, and i slept in the same room with him when he was one or two years old
Oct 15 09:45:43 <mnemonic1> (especially bad when you put such a statement in an article on pedophilia)
Oct 15 09:46:12 <mnemonic1> BTW, i don't have an infant son. (I opted to keep my daughter out of this example.)
Oct 15 09:46:23 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 09:47:19 <mnemonic1> cary: mnemonic1, I just had a phone call, "If someone becomes famous, or starts a big company, is there any policy that can keep them off the Wikipedia?"
Oct 15 09:47:54 <mnemonic1> the short answer is: if you're notable, you're fair game. we won't remove you if you're notable, and the community decides what qualifies as notable
Oct 15 09:48:27 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 09:49:30 <yannf> QUESTION: is the IOC requirements valid in the first place?
Oct 15 09:49:36 <Ziko> mike, what is notable could be judged differently by us and others
Oct 15 09:49:56 <Ziko> there is also a cross country problematic
Oct 15 09:50:09 * SMP_ca est parti ("Bona nit")
Oct 15 09:50:45 <yannf> (imposing copyright related restrictions because someone buy a ticket)
Oct 15 09:50:56 <mnemonic1> the IOC requirements -- that you not distribute any photos you take at the Olympics commercially -- are essentially contractual, based on your having bought a ticket to the games. so they're valid, in the sense that you can voluntarily choose between obeying the IOC rules when you buy a ticket, or not attending the Olympics
Oct 15 09:51:18 <yannf> ok, thanks
Oct 15 09:51:47 <mnemonic1> Ziko, i'm not too worried about about differences in judgments with regard to notability. the community tends to be reasonably conservative about such things (the German community in particular is)
Oct 15 09:52:09 <Ziko> :-) right
Oct 15 09:52:56 <Ziko> Sometimes in Dutch papers a criminal (or suspect) is called "Volkert van der G.", and German papers tell the full name because the person is from abroad (and vice versa)
Oct 15 09:53:01 <mnemonic1> as to differences in countries' laws, well, we operate under US law, primarily. we are not ready to let a country with the "lowest common denominator" or "highest common denominator" dictate standards for a world-accessible resource
Oct 15 09:53:12 <tgr> QUESTION: would you consider a revocable license free if it meets all other requirements? are licenses such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyrighted_free_use revocable?
Oct 15 09:53:41 <Ziko> Or a person in notable in country A but not country B
Oct 15 09:54:25 <mnemonic1> (BTW, the English and French and Polish and Arabic wikipedias think I'm notable, but the Germans don't)
Oct 15 09:54:33 <mnemonic1> (go figure)
Oct 15 09:54:41 <yannf> lol
Oct 15 09:54:56 <Ziko> On the other hand, a person in German law can be "notable" only for a certain time ("relative Person der Zeitgeschichte"). so when someone is convicted he is notable, but twenty years later he is not in order to give him the chance to reintegration into society
Oct 15 09:55:59 <cary> thanks for tgr, yannf and Ziko in keeping our legal counsel busy
Oct 15 09:56:00 <cary> <tgr> QUESTION: would you consider a revocable license free if it meets all other requirements? are licenses such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyrighted_free_use revocable?
Oct 15 09:56:03 <mnemonic1> Ziko, i'm quite familiar with this German rule about who's a public figure based on criminal convictions, after they've served their time. needless to say, the German rule is in conflict with some other nations' standards
Oct 15 09:56:25 <Ziko> it is? I did not know
Oct 15 09:57:10 <mnemonic1> tgr, i think that formally free licenses aren't revocable, but as a practical matter we occasionally allow contributors to revoke their licenses, because it's easier to let them do it then to fight with them about it. we don't want to be in a position in which WMF is on ongoing conflict with contributors over stuff the contributors created.
Oct 15 09:57:30 <Ziko> then again, there can be someone totally unnotable to German Wikipedia, but to Low Saxon Wikipedia
Oct 15 09:57:48 <tgr> mnemonic1, GFDL and CC are formally irrevocable, but not all licenses say so explicitly
Oct 15 09:57:54 <tgr> see linked example
Oct 15 09:58:19 <mnemonic1> Ziko, there are a couple of cases now in which two German murderers who've served their time want their names removed from a related article on English Wikipedia.
Oct 15 09:58:41 <mnemonic1> the English WP editors aren't inclined to grant the request, even though the German editors have done so
Oct 15 09:58:46 * WikiziA2342794 est parti ("CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)")
Oct 15 09:59:18 <Ziko> oh. Obviously, those rules have been made in the pre internet era and were directed to newspaper reportage
Oct 15 09:59:20 <mnemonic1> tgr, i agree that the GFDL and CC are formally irrevocable, and they quite properly try to communicate irrevocability to those who use the licenses
Oct 15 09:59:47 <mnemonic1> but, again, as a practical matter, i don't think we want WMF in fights with creators over that stuff they created, if we can avoid it
Oct 15 10:00:14 <mnemonic1> sometimes it's good, even when you have a legal right to something, not to invoke it or fight over it
Oct 15 10:00:46 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 10:01:05 <tgr> mnemonic1, i agree, what i'm unsure of is what to do with licenses that do not say they are irrevocable
Oct 15 10:01:27 <werdna> are you talking about images?
Oct 15 10:01:46 <mnemonic1> which licenses are you talking about, specifically?
Oct 15 10:02:29 <tgr> for example, some images on Commons have this license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyrighted_free_use
Oct 15 10:03:09 <tgr> but there are more formal licenses that also do not say they are irrevocable or perpetual, though i would have to look it up to know which ones exactly
Oct 15 10:03:27 <tgr> there was a debate about this some time ago on Commons
Oct 15 10:03:44 <tgr> if a license says anyone can copy and adapt, can it be revocable at all?
Oct 15 10:03:58 <tgr> and if it can, should we still consider it as free?
Oct 15 10:03:59 <mnemonic1> tgr, i think that many and perhaps most free licenses are inherently irrevocable
Oct 15 10:04:16 <Submarine> hi there
Oct 15 10:04:37 <mnemonic1> the only really doubtful cases, in my mind, would be ones in which the licensor expressly reserved his right to revoke
Oct 15 10:05:08 <tgr> i see
Oct 15 10:05:34 <cary> David is here, an hour late
Oct 15 10:05:44 <mnemonic1> my view is that a court would view the template you just cited as irrevocable, either for legal or for equitable reasons
Oct 15 10:05:54 <cary> Submarine, 1600 UTC = 18:00 in your area
Oct 15 10:06:11 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 10:06:11 <tgr> QUESTION: are EU database rights a problem for the WMF? (Uploading text from a digitized version of a PD encyclopedia, for example) should we avoid such content, or as long as the uploader is fine with the risk he himself takes, is it ok?
Oct 15 10:06:39 <Submarine> cary, I'm back from work.
Oct 15 10:06:42 <cary> ah
Oct 15 10:06:52 <mnemonic1> we do not accept database protection rights in the USA, and the US is not signatory to any international agreements protecting databases
Oct 15 10:07:14 <mnemonic1> most commentators view database rights as inherently bad for public-policy reasons
Oct 15 10:07:46 <mnemonic1> so, tgr, i don't believe we should avoid the uploading of digitized content from a PD encyclopedia
Oct 15 10:08:06 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 10:08:18 <Submarine> Certain organizers of events, or museums, state on their tickets or on placards inside their property that it is prohibited to take photographs, or allowed but prohibited to use them for commercial purposes. These people allege this is a form of binding contract with the photographer. Can they request that WMF takes down photographs that have been taken in such a way and uploaded under a free license?
Oct 15 10:08:39 <mnemonic1> submarine, we've answered this question already, but i'll answer it again
Oct 15 10:09:12 <mnemonic1> even if we assume the contract is binding on the photographer (and i tend to assume it is), it's not binding on WMF, which is not party to the contract
Oct 15 10:09:14 <cimon> QUESTION: What about pre-published under CC-BY-SA content that the authors of which have not explicitly agreed with our sites TOS, are those a significant problem?
Oct 15 10:09:31 <mnemonic1> cimon, that problem hasn't really come up
Oct 15 10:09:47 <cimon> hypothetically?
Oct 15 10:10:08 <mnemonic1> give me some more facts to highlight the hypothetical conflict?
Oct 15 10:10:08 <Submarine> mnemonic1, This is what I suspected. I'll inquire whether in some countries third parties may be held responsible for reusing goods that have been obtained through breach of contract.
Oct 15 10:10:25 <cary> QUESTION: What if the earth opens and swallows the WMF office while everyone is at work?
Oct 15 10:10:53 <Amgine> as long as it isn't the servers, we're fine... <winks>
Oct 15 10:11:04 <mnemonic1> Submarine, the longer answer is this: *so long as WMF did not encourage or participate in the breach of contract*, it's not going to be liable under contract or tort or criminal law
Oct 15 10:11:21 <Amgine> QUESTION: on a question related to databases, US courts have ruled the definition of a word may not be copyrighted, but a dictionary can be. Is this in the grey area of US law?
Oct 15 10:11:49 <cimon> mnemonic1, presume a source of publication. wiht no TOS, but CC-BY-SA licence. presume there is a hypothetical additional requirement in Wikimedia TOS, that goes beyond the legalities of CC-BY-SA strictly constructed...
Oct 15 10:11:54 <mnemonic1> cary, if the earth opens and swallows the WMF office, i think Jay will probably survive to run WMF, since he's out of the office most
Oct 15 10:11:57 <mnemonic1> ;)
Oct 15 10:12:09 <Philippe|afk> He'll issue press release number J-15B6
Oct 15 10:12:18 <fschulenburg> :-)
Oct 15 10:12:46 <mnemonic1> Amgine, the rule really comes down the case Feist v. Rural Telephone
Oct 15 10:12:50 <mnemonic1> -1991
Oct 15 10:13:25 <mnemonic1> if the dictionary is reasonably creative in its collection and organization of facts, it's copyrightable (although it's a very thin copyright that wouldn't prevent you from quoting a particular definition)
Oct 15 10:13:29 * Prodego est parti (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
Oct 15 10:13:59 <cimon> QUESTION: Let me rephrase like this: "Has CC indicated that there is no friction between CC licence and Wikimedia TOS?"
Oct 15 10:14:28 <mnemonic1> i think there's a wikipedia entry on the Feist case
Oct 15 10:14:46 <mnemonic1> of course, those who oppose the Feist ruling are the anti-Feist
Oct 15 10:15:11 <mnemonic1> cimon, CC has not identified any conflict between the CC licenses we use and the Wikimedia TOS
Oct 15 10:15:25 <mnemonic1> there are some CC licenses we don't use -- CC-NC, for example
Oct 15 10:15:33 <cimon> mnemonic1, I consider your reply unresponsive ;-)
Oct 15 10:15:36 <mnemonic1> CC-NC is a sucky license
Oct 15 10:16:19 <mnemonic1> cimon, i consider your question odd -- "has CC asserted negative pregnancy with regard to licensing/TOS conflicts?"
Oct 15 10:16:28 <mnemonic1> uh, no, but that's not the sort of thing CC would do
Oct 15 10:16:29 <cimon> fair enough
Oct 15 10:16:33 <werdna> negative pregnancy?
Oct 15 10:16:42 <cary> has CC asserted they aren't pregnant
Oct 15 10:16:54 <cary> in other words, you don't expect people to announce they aren't pregnant
Oct 15 10:17:02 <cimon> werdna, you have to understand, Mike an me speak fairly in complex levels...
Oct 15 10:17:14 <Amgine> <considers anti-Feist a terrible, terrible pun, so I must find an opportunity to plagiarize it.>
Oct 15 10:17:19 <cary> werdna, comprends?
Oct 15 10:17:41 <cary> cimon, it's not that complex.
Oct 15 10:17:47 <mnemonic1> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Negative_Pregnancy_Test.JPG
Oct 15 10:18:12 <mnemonic1> but actually, it's a kind of logical/rhetorical term
Oct 15 10:18:21 <tgr> QUESTION: is CC-BY-SA attribution cumulative? after reading the legalcode it is not obvious to me whether one has to give attribution for anything but the last version
Oct 15 10:18:27 <mnemonic1> a proposition that is "pregnant" with a negative implication
Oct 15 10:19:11 <mnemonic1> tgr, i think CC tried to keep the attribution requirement of CC-BY-SA loose and flexible, so it will tend to vary among implementations.
Oct 15 10:19:27 <mnemonic1> all implementations, however, should lead you back to those who have created/contributed to the content
Oct 15 10:19:36 <mnemonic1> (the only question is how long the path is)
Oct 15 10:20:03 <tgr> and how many links in it have rotted
Oct 15 10:20:44 <mnemonic1> i don't think free licensing requires perfect attribution -- it requires a significant good-faith effort, though
Oct 15 10:20:52 <tgr> I like the way Wikipedia TOS solves the question of attribution, but it seems to be stricter than CC-BY-SA itself
Oct 15 10:21:05 <mnemonic1> lots of law-review articles have cited web links that now no longer work
Oct 15 10:21:11 <tgr> which would be a problem since CC-BY-SA forbids stricter requirements
Oct 15 10:21:20 <mnemonic1> i feel bad for them, but i'm not losing sleep over it
Oct 15 10:21:30 <mnemonic1> besides, the Internet Archive is kind of helpful
Oct 15 10:22:20 <mnemonic1> tgr, i think Wikipedia attribution requirements are allowed for under CC-BY-SA because they're appropriate to the medium
Oct 15 10:22:51 <mnemonic1> next?
Oct 15 10:23:04 <tgr> imagine spammer putting up Wikipedia Mirror 1, linking to Wikipedia (without a page history of its own)
Oct 15 10:23:24 <tgr> then setting up Wikipedia Mirror 2, linking to Wikipedia Mirror 1
Oct 15 10:23:28 <mnemonic1> i imagine a trademark case immediately launched
Oct 15 10:23:58 <mnemonic1> not to mention UDRPs relating to domain names
Oct 15 10:23:58 <tgr> okay, obviously the name is just an example
Oct 15 10:24:37 <tgr> anyway, if he then removes mirror 1, he has an attribution-free copy of Wikipedia, and that should be legal under CC-BY-SA
Oct 15 10:24:46 <tgr> but not under WM TOS
Oct 15 10:25:07 <mnemonic1> well, we might potentially have a cause of action against someone violating TOS
Oct 15 10:25:28 <tgr> in which case Wikipedia would violate CC-BY-SA
Oct 15 10:25:34 <cary> 5 minutes and then we have to close.
Oct 15 10:25:57 <tgr> which explicitly forbids any extra requirements which are not in CC-BY-SA legalcode itself
Oct 15 10:26:45 <mnemonic1> tgr, we wouldn't violate CC-BY-SA at all
Oct 15 10:26:57 <mnemonic1> because we wouldn't be making a COPYRIGHT claim
Oct 15 10:27:13 <cimon> Just by the by, there was a "statement" at some point that the theory underpinning the TOS of WM was signed off by folks "in the know" within CC. That is basically the root of my query. I didn't consider that mooting of an interpretation of some statement that wasn't given in context or even verbatim very convincing. I would still like to read the original which the expressed view was based upon.
Oct 15 10:27:27 <mnemonic1> a TOS violation or a TRADEMARK violation can be pursued without imposing COPYRIGHT limitations inconsistent with CC-BY-SA