Comments on: Code v2.0 and the CC-Wiki license http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/ Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: basma gamal http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-47010 Thu, 01 May 2014 17:02:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-47010 شركة
تسليك مجارى بالرياض

شركة
كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض

شركات
العزل الحراري بالرياض

شركة
عزل مائي بالرياض

شركة
عوازل بالرياض

شركة
عزل اسطح بالرياض

شركة
عزل خزانات بالرياض

شركة
تنظيف خزانات بالرياض

عزل
وتنظيف الخزانات

خدمات
التسليك والتسربات

نقل
وتخزين الاثاث

مكافحة
الحشرات ورش المبيدات

خدمات
التنظيف

شركة
عزل خزانات بجدة

شركة
تسليك مجارى بجدة

شركة
تنظيف مسابح بجدة

شركة
تنظيف مجالس بجدة

شركة
تنظيف موكيت بجدة

شركة
تنظيف شقق بجدة

شركة
تنظيف فلل بجدة

كشف
تسربات المياة بجدة

شركة
تنظيف خزانات بجدة

نقل
عفش جدة

شركات
تنظيف المنازل في جدة

شركة
تنظيف بجدة

شركات
رش المبيدات الحشرية بجدة

شركات
مكافحة الحشرات في جدة

عزل
وتنظيف الخزانات

خدمات
التسليك والتسربات

نقل
وتخزين الاثاث

مكافحة
الحشرات ورش المبيدات

خدمات
التنظيف

شركة
كشف تسرب المياه بالخرج

شركة
نقل عفش بالخرج

]]>
By: basma gamal http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-47011 Thu, 01 May 2014 17:02:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-47011 شركة
عزل اسطح بالخرج

شركة
رش مبيدات بالخرج

شركة
مكافحة حشرات بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف خزانات بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف موكيت بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف مجالس بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف منازل بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف فلل بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف شقق بالخرج

شركة
تنظيف بالخرج

عزل
وتنظيف الخزانات

خدمات
التسليك والتسربات

نقل
وتخزين الاثاث

]]>
By: kreditkarte ohne schufa http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-42861 Thu, 09 May 2013 02:24:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-42861 Duperre super-site! I’m loving it! ‘ Will come back once
more – acquiring you to eat, thank you.

]]>
By: Christian Louboutin Replica http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-41796 Tue, 07 May 2013 02:37:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-41796 Thank you for the good writeup. It in truth was once a enjoyment account it.
Glance complex to more brought agreeable from you! By the way, how could we keep
in touch?

]]>
By: More Bonuses http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-40106 Fri, 03 May 2013 04:54:23 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-40106 Wow, marvelous weblog format! How lengthy have you ever been
running a blog for? you make blogging glance easy.
The full look of your site is magnificent, as neatly as the content material!

Look into my webpage; More Bonuses

]]>
By: credit loan consolidation http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-39801 Thu, 02 May 2013 10:24:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-39801 Hi i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anyplace, when i read this piece of writing i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible post.

]]>
By: Grace http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-38941 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:31:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-38941 Great post. I will be dealing with many of these
issues as well..

my web blog: Grace

]]>
By: christian louboutin australia http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-38728 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:39:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-38728 Hi, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it
has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
Other then that, fantastic blog!

]]>
By: Christian Louboutin shoes http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-37289 Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:46:59 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-37289 Hey there, You have done a great job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I’m sure
they will be benefited from this site.

]]>
By: discount christian louboutin http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-36725 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:48:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-36725 Hello There. I found your weblog the use of msn.

That is a really well written article. I will be sure to
bookmark it and come back to read more of your helpful info.
Thank you for the post. I will certainly comeback.

]]>
By: Louboutin Shoes http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-36066 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:39:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-36066 I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I do not know who you are but certainly you’re going to a
famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!

]]>
By: louboutins http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-36033 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:17:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-36033 Great blog here! Also your web site loads up very fast!
What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host?
I wish my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

]]>
By: louboutin shoes http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-36032 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:57:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-36032 Wow, amazing blog layout! How long have you been blogging
for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is great, let
alone the content!

]]>
By: Christian Louboutin shoes http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-35933 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:05:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-35933 Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote
the book in it or something. I think that you could
do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is fantastic
blog. A fantastic read. I’ll definitely be back.

]]>
By: domina tu orgasmo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-35904 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:27:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-35904 Hello ωould you mіnd ѕhаring whiсh blοg plаtfoгm you’re using? I’m plаnning to start
my οwn blog ѕoon but I’m having a tough time making a decision between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looκіng for ѕοmething unіque.
P.Ѕ Ѕorry for being оff-tοріc but I had tо ask!

Feel freе tο suгf to my ωеblοg – domina tu orgasmo

]]>
By: Summer http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-35746 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:54:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-35746 Thankfulness to my father who told me concerning this blog, this webpage is genuinely awesome.

]]>
By: Bruce Ingalls http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20645 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:54:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20645 Consider a clarification of commercial gain, in the creative commons license, with the words direct and/or indirect.

  • Does a song used in a (gratis) advertisement qualify as commercial gain?
  • A quote used in the shopping cart section of a website?
  • A picture on your desk at work?

I believe that you can encourage commercial adoption of the Creative Commons License, if you make a variant, which allows traditional copyright to sunset into the Creative Commons, after the book goes out of print, or, say 5 years pass.

]]>
By: sparkle http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20644 Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:44:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20644 sparkle

]]>
By: anonymous (Re: KirbyMeister) http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20643 Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:47:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20643 to: KirbyMeister – The GNU Free Documentation License allows you to cite only “the five top contributors”, and there are some discussions about including a similar clause in CC-by-* as part of “Debian Free Software Guidelines” compliance (see the “Points raised on debian-legal” thread on cc-licenses). This issue is much discussed at Wikipedia, whose exported XML currently does not track who the “top 5″ are. There are lots of people who want a solution to this, however the cc-wiki license just isn’t one.

]]>
By: KirbyMeister http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20642 Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:24:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20642 James Day – good point. However, the problem with having to cite _all_ the authors is exactly that. Imagine if upwards of 50 people worked on a CodeV2 page, and we had to cite it. I am not aware of an MLA format for wikis. Try citing a 50-author wiki page, and then you’ll understand that citing EVERY author gets a little too unwieldy.

]]>
By: Lori http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20641 Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:02:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20641 What do you think of those such as Cody Brocious & PyMusic, trying to allow people who use OS systems such as Linux to bypass the DRM on iTunes yet pay for the music downloads?

]]>
By: Pablo Rodr�guez http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20640 Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:17:28 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20640 I agree with John Mark Ockerbloom about releasing the first edition of Code as a PDF file (as Free Culture has been released) for future reference.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to get Code for free. Beside the reasons mentioned by John, I think that releasing the first edition as a PDF file would have two main benefits. More people would be able to read it, so that some will be willing to help with the second edition and others will be willing to buy the second edition to read the book.

Please, consider this option to increase the spread of the project and the book.

]]>
By: Shaun http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20639 Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:37:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20639 I find this is a great idea. The largest problem however I find is the divide between the GFDL (Gnu Free Document License) and the CC licenses.

There is an article on Metalicensing that would allow for the CC and GFDL to be combined since the license indicates that the work must be able to be released under each. More information on newsforge here:

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/07/1923242&tid=152&tid=150&tid=132

And the author’s homepage which also has an article (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 copyright) here:

http://www.gatchev.info/articles/en/metalicensing.html

Meta licensing will probably be used more to try and bridge the gap as more copyright licenses are created.

]]>
By: Craig Hubley http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20638 Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:42:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20638 The so-called “discussion space for the license” apparently does not exist or does not work – where is it? Why didn’t you link it? Why isn’t it a simple wiki talk page? It’s absurd to use blogs or mailing lists or other non-wiki methods to discuss a wiki license!

Jot.com seems to have very serious deficiencies in how it solicits feedback. Not as bad as the totally useless opaque SourceForge, which is incomprehensible even to experts in development, but, still VERY bad. NOT what you should be relying on for important feedback on important licenses. The discussion should be at Creative Commons’ own mediawiki at wiki.creativecommons.org instead.

]]>
By: Craig Hubley http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/code-v20-and-the-ccwiki-licens/#comment-20637 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:22:59 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/code_v20_and_the_ccwiki_licens.html#comment-20637 The cc-wiki license seems like a very bad idea. Why does it make sense to bifurcate a license just because some bad technology doesn’t properly track attribution? It would be simple enough to modify the standard CC-by, CC-by-sa and CC-by-sa-nc for how contributions via different technologies are handled – if necessary in a technology-dependent schedule which is assumed based on which technology is actually used to receive and republish the work(s) involved.

Furthermore this seems to drastically shift the power balance to the initial place where the work shows up, rather than to the author. By shifting the “required attribution back to the wiki, rather than to the individual contributors to the wiki”, it actually means that the OWNER of the DOMAIN NAME is in full charge – amplifying the power of the bizarre WIPO / ICANN regime of domain names and even such clowns as NEW.NET. Is this really the right group of people to be heavily reinforcing, giving new rights to? The powers of domain name holders are arbitrary enough, and there is not one wiki out there which has implemented any kind of real democracy in how it is operated: even Wikipedia, possibly the most advanced, still has a board dominated by the initial founders, who retain a “dictator for life” majority position on its Board.

Appropriate terms of use for a CC-based wiki would:

1. Distinguish between the rights granted to the wiki/publisher by the author, and rights granted to the public by the wiki/publisher

2. Permit ONLY those rights granted to the wiki/publisher that are NOT granted to the public to be retained by “the wiki itself” as publisher (remember a “wiki” is NOT a legal entity, it is a medium only – there are factions, collaborating pairs and trios and larger groups, and sometimes substantial political opposition groups in any large public wiki). For example LIving Platform recognizes individual works as CC-by and any joint works are redistributed as CC-by-nc-sa (though they could also be redistributed via CC-by-sa or GFDL since it’s quite easy to satisfy the CC-by and these licenses as well).

3. Require reasonable journalistic and academic conventions to be followed in attributing comments – if something is edited from an exclusive work of one person to a joint work, then, it can be rewritten as a third person article quoting both persons, even if those two are the authors. This convention is very common on well run wikis. Also it is completely wrong to assume that “the wiki” can reliably track “who people are”. There’s a lot of collective and alleged identity on most wikis – sock puppets, troll names, impersonation, names that look like ordinary people, and all that. Make it clear in the license that the effort administrators must go through, to validate “who wrote what”, is limited, and make it simple to require that contributors use a real-name-login or type their name in a field with a valid email address if they want credit. Else clicking “Save” should relieve the publisher of obligations.

4. As noted above, make explicit mention of technology limits and which modes of contribution (e.g. logins with real names) qualify for attribution, and how the “top 5″ contributors are to be defined – this for compatibility with the popular GFDL license.

5. Where the original work or author no longer uses a wiki but maintains the work elsewhere, that should be the location that is published, NOT the one where the work was originally seen. In case of disputes between authors and publishers, this puts the power with the authors, where it obviously belongs.

So “rather than requiring attribution back to the copyright holder, require attribution back to either the copyright holder or a designated entity”, which will inevitably be the “owned” domain, is an entirely wrongheaded solution. It dilutes the rights of authors for the convenience and sloppiness and control of technologists and publishers. Why put up with that?

It’s easy enough for code to do most of the attribution work, if someone actually WANTS attribution. And it’s easy to modify the standard CC-by, CC-by-sa and CC-by-nc-sa, to deal explicitly with GFDL republication, technological limits, attempts to fool the editorial effort, and multiple identities or alleged identities or collective identities. Creating a technology specific license seems like entirely the wrong idea:

When the work is written, you don’t KNOW if it will be wiki’d. Obviously Code is just one such example.

]]>