Hello, Text tagged with "Copyright (C) 2000-2008 by Vernon Nemitz (Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line)". I don't think that is sufficient or equivalent to a free license. I might be wrong through, as the contributor Objectivist claims otherwise. Yann
) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- To me, that looks like an assignment of copyright rather than a licence. IANAL, but in many countries, shared copyright may only be exercised jointly. If that is indeed the case here, it is not a free work. For example, in order to make commercial use of the work, you'd have to ask all other copyright holders whether you may do so. Probably, you'd have to share your profits with them.--GrafZahl (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not necessarily the case. Without going too deeply into this, (since Nemitz claims to be the sole author) it has been my consistent reading that any one of joint authors can exercise the rights independently. Part of the confusion seems to be with Nemitz's introduction of the novel term "shared copyright." Eclecticology (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Biggest problem, to me, is that it doesn't seem to be within Wikisource's ambit. It doesn't seem to have been formally published anywhere. As for the license, Objectivist says "as the sole author I most certainly know what it means to share a copyright, which is literally the "right to copy", with all who retain the copyright notice", but it's not merely the right to copy; among other things, it's the right to change the words. As long as he's here, I think it much better for him to provide a license that's clear to everyone; CC-Attribution license would probably meet his needs, if he wants to make it a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The apparent previous publication in Infinite Energy is prima facie evidence of publication unless someone intends to challenge the existence of that publication. He is certainly wrong to suggest, as he does on his user talk page, that we are obliged to accept his works, even if they conform perfectly with our policies. We would probably be quite amenable to including such works, but we would not raise that amenability to the level of an obligation.
- The concept of "shared copyright" as Nemitz uses it seems to mean that he would share those rights with those who would use his article in the future. The moral right to attribution is essentially already recognized (perhaps imperfectly) in the GFDL, so in that regard his condition is a redundancy. For our puposes we want to represent an author's work as accurately as we can, so we allow no substantive modifications on our site. That requirement does not extend to downstream users, though those users who make modifications are required to credit the original author, and may receive equal credit for their modifications. This could be interpreted as a "shared copyright", but not an exclusive one.
- I don't think that our hosting the article is a copyright violation, but I also don't think that we can accept his redundant and confusing condition. If he wants us to host the article that condition must be deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; we dont permit "invariant sections". Also, we require peer review as well as publication in our inclusion criteria; It looks like Infinite Energy meets that criteria as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not so sure. This looks like full copyright with generous republication terms, and the essential difference between that and copyleft is that republication permission can be revoked. That hasn't been acceptable to other WMF projects where I'm active. Does Wikisource follow a different practice? Durova (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- We only accept free content, so we need the copyright holder to email email@example.com to verify that they agree to license it under the terms of one of the "free content" licenses described in that policy page. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can do that. I just didn't know enough about how to indicate the document was being made available. I also did not see a simple way to specify such a thing when I originally posted the document. (After posting some comments about that, my Log-In Account disappeared. Not nice!) Perhaps the unavailability of a simple way to specify document-sharing was because I, the author of the document, did not log into WikiSource under my own name? Anyway, let me here-and-now clearly indicate what the phrase "Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line" was about: I am sharing the right to make copies of the document with anyone who includes the copyright line in the copy. The result is, no matter where a copy of the document ends up, the I-the-author would remain associated with it. I did not want somebody replacing my name with theirs and claiming credit for the Hypothesis. Simple. Perhaps TOO simple, if this much discussion has been a result! (Perhaps some of the problem is that after entering the text with the copyright statement on one line, and the copyright-shared statement on the next line, the two lines got merged onto one line? I will add a line-break!)
- I don't know what you mean by saying your log-in account was deleted. User:Objectivist still exists and doesn't appear to be blocked; you were probably just logged out automatically. Your expanded license doesn't fix one of my major complaints; to be hosted on Wikisource, it must not merely be copyable, it must be editable. For example, someone must have the right to dissect it, rearrange the pieces, and add commentary to show why cold fusion is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to log in and got a message saying the account did not exist. This happened AGAIN, after posting my prior message above, and then logging out. On this particular posting occasion, I took a different tack, first pulled up the account-verification email, clicked the link in that email, and THEN tried to log in. That worked. Could this be related to not checking the "Remember me on this computer" checkbox?
- Next topic: When I posted the cold-fusion-hypothesis article, at that time I was under the impression that WikiSource was such that Wikipedia could consider to be a reliable place to hold source-reference articles. In other words, if in Wikipedia a link is created to an external reference, and preferably a Web reference, then WikiSource could hold that reference, such that anyone reading the Wikipedia article could follow the link and read the reference article. HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE IF ANY ARTICLE HERE CAN BE HACKED APART BY SOME VESTED INTEREST THAT OPPOSES IT? (For a more blatant sort of "conspiracy" claim, consider the possibility of some opponent of an idea using "possible copyright infringement" as an excuse to prevent the idea from being visible....) What IS the actual purpose of WikiSource, if it is essentially (as implied by Prosfilaes) another battleground of edit-and-undo, like Wikipedia? Would it not make more sense for an opposing viewpoint to have its own article here, for Wikipedia to reference? Or, what if the original text of some controversial article is locked, but appending to it is allowed, so that the original text can be debated without being edited into more-complete-nonsense than any detractor would claim originally existed in it? Is there ANY place in WikiMedia that can do the thing I thought WikiSource was set up to do???
- Wikisource exists to preserve texts, but only free ones, in the sense that they can be edited at will. They can't be changed on Wikisource, but we ask that they can be taken from Wikisource and changed off-wiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I understand that point, but it still means some opponent of an idea can take an original posting, no matter how preserved here at WikiSource, hack it into blatantly-obvious nonsense, and then post it in umpteen places on the Web with the claim that the edited document is the original document, and no-one should be so foolish as to trust the copy at WikiSource. Consider a case that apocryphally happened once with the text of one printed edition of the Bible, in which the "adultery Commandment" had the word "not" removed from it. In a scenario in which that edition had been deliberately widespread and (obviously) argued-about for, say, a hundred million years, who could at that late time be SURE which version of that Commandment was the original, when no traces of any real originals would have survived? So, why does WikiSource embrace ONLY copying policies that would allow such a thing? What's WRONG about allowing postings that can simply/only be copied freely???? I chose WikiSource as a place to post this, over, say, a Google "Knol", simply because I knew the article could pass the "formally published" test in a way that, if referenced by a Wikipedia article, no anti-idea/vested-interest Wikipedia editor could get away with deleting the reference. Having an INDISPUTABLY original text here is valuable. For WikiSource to insist that such a text must be trash-able, even if only outside of WikiSource, is counterproductive, is it not?
- Libel laws will stop people from claiming that you wrote what you didn't better than copyright law, which won't stop completely made up text in any case. Wikisource:Copyright policy makes the demand that text be editable, whether you feel it's counterproductive or not, and here is not the place to argue that it should be changed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent). I see where you're coming from. I think that I can also fairly state that anyone regularly associated with Wikisource consistently supports the integrity of the author's text, some even to an extent that others consider excessive in matters of typography. Nevertheless there exists a basic stratum that all of us support. Wikisourcerors are not in a position to pass judgement, for or against, cold fusion, and, by recognizing that, we have fewer NPOV arguments than Wikipedia. With or without your additional statement about copyright, we have no control over the activities of downstream users. To the extent that a text here is licensed rather than public domain the author retains copyright, and if that text becomes a victim of downstream abuse you retain the right to sue the abuser. There is nothing in the licence by which the Wikimedia Foundation acquires the standing to sue on your behalf. Furthermore, your legitimate concern is about the "moral" right of textual integrity, something which is only symbolically recognised in US copyright law; the provisions there mention it but take pains to insure that the violation of moral rights incurs no penalties.
Supplementary provisions with uncertain and often unintended legal interpretations and consequences, such as "shared copyright" only make the landscape of free licences more difficult. We already witness difficulties reconciling GFDL and CC, even though at the root the same result is sought. Eclecticology (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- All right, let me ask if this can be acceptable; I don't see wording like this in the lists of example licences:
"This work is licensed as follows:
1. It may be freely copied, in whole or in part.
2. The author of the copied work must be identified.
3. Any copied parts of the work may be modified freely, provided:
A. They are clearly marked as being a modification of the original work.
B. At least one link to the original work is included."
- I think that would adequately address my concerns. Perhaps other authors would like this license, too. Whether or not it is too demanding for WikiSource, though....—unsigned comment by Objectivist (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2008.
- Please take a look at the "Creative Commons - Attribution" license, which provides basically what you have described, but it is a license which has been created by lawyers and it is "well known", which means the benefits and weaknesses of it have been discussed to death on forums across the Internet. You can read about it on Wikipedia: w:Creative Commons and w:Creative Commons licenses. And, here is the "Legal code" for you to inspect. I think you will find it meets your needs. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty good/close to what I wrote above. However, it is not clear if Section 4c requires a link to be provided to the original work. I consider that to be more important than the requirements of 4d, simply because if the work is labeled as modified, and if the original is easily accessible via a link, then anyone encountering a negatively modified version can quickly compare it to the original, thereby discovering the various ways in which the modified version had been negatively distorted. It seems to me that requiring such a link would provide greater protection against such modifications than Section 4d. What liars want their lies exposed so easily? (And, of course, any such liar who fails to include the link can be sued for violating the license!) Well, let me know if I have misinterpreted Section 4c, thanks.
- One reason that requiring a link to the original work is unacceptable is that doing so essentially forbids anyone from creating modified works outside of the internet. A pamphlet derived from your work cannot link to the original copy. Neither can abridged spoken recording for the blind, etc. On the other hand a person that does not speak English would not find mere inspection of the orginal work as much protection from a harmful French version as what is given by the CC license.--BirgitteSB 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, that's why lawyers get paid to word things very carefully. Here we are on the Web and it is easy to think of accessibility in terms of Web hyperlinks. However, technically, such a link is an address or "access pathway", a kind of road to follow to reach a specific thing. If a modified work published in a pamphlet included a description of the publication information of the original work, then that also is a kind of link. Yes, such would not be a way to rapidly access the original work, but it is better than nothing (and even a printed-on-paper Web hyperlink/address, of, say, the WikiSource copy of the work, is better than nothing). My point is, the person who encounters a modified work should be given sufficient information to access the original "published" version of the work, somehow. (Example: "This work is a modification of a painting known as "The Mona Lisa", by Leonardo da Vinci. The original is located at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.") Then it is up to that person to choose to investigate the original or not (including not clicking on a Web hyperlink). In the case of a mistranslated work, access to the original version EVENTUALLY means access to a reasonably accurate translation. So, is there no License out there that can meet my preferences in this matter? Thanks in advance! Objectivist (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It all comes down to a question of enforcement. Whatever licensing you or we may designate, it's still only as strong as your willingness to go to court against anyone who violates the terms of that licence. Disney's power of pap does not derive from putting copyright notices on their productions, but from their willingness to be complete jerks when they take someone to court for violating their rights. "Sharing" the rights does not impose any obligation to enforce. Eclecticology (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are many many licenses, with lots of minor variations; FAL might be what you want, as it requires:
||You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without any charge, provided that you:
- specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals, including yours if you have modified the work,
- specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent).
- However, I dont think the Wikisource community has agreed to accept documents contributed under FAL. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikisource community has never really formally agreed to accept documents under any specific license. We generally only ask for agreement to delete things. Is there any reason to argue that FAL fails WS:COPY?--BirgitteSB 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(de-indenting) Well, there's one simple way to find out. The FAL looks OK to me. I'll send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org mentioning that license, and see what happens. Thank you, all! Objectivist (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Commons seems to use this license without controversy, so I imagine you are in good shape.--BirgitteSB 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's nice, except I sent the email several days ago and the article still is flagged as a possible copyright violator. When will it be fixed? (after which, of course, this section of this page can be deleted)??? Thanks! (by Objectivist, although not logged in)
- It should be taken care by an OTRS volunteer shortly. Then we will just have see if anyone comes along and objects to the FAL in principle. I think it should be fine, but it is the first time I am aware of anyone using that license here so there is always an uncertainty with something unfamiliar.--BirgitteSB 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW it will stay marked as under discussion for copyright violation a bit longer. That tag will be removed when this discussion is closed. It will probably be open a few more days to see if anyone raises further objections.--BirgitteSB 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've confirmed that this work is licensed under the FAL, which is a free license. While the FAL does meet the definition of a free-content license, I do not know whether that is acceptable for text, nor whether Wikisource can accept it. For example, there may be compatibility issues. Thanks – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Any free license, including FAL, is fine for me, so I think that this case can be closed. Yann (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- It may be worth pointing out that this is primary research. As such, there may be scope issues. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain that in more detail? The published article is a "hypothesis", defined in the article as being "just a guess, an attempt to create an explanation for certain observations." A number of known facts are described in the article, and then are assembled into the hypothetical explanation. This cannot be worse than, in any "hard science" science-fiction novel, the attempt to create a plausible explanation for how some fantastical device is supposed to work (say a disintegrator ray).
- Mike is not familiar with the scope of Wikisource and his concerns are unfounded. There is no question that the document is within the scope of Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
[de-indenting] Thank you. Now it's almost two weeks later, and the article is still flagged as problematic. How long is "a few more days" around here?