Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#41

Post by endisneigh »

Symbiote wrote: post #39
endisneigh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever consider that it is exciting for someone to have completed this work successfully? Would you also say it’s strange for someone to be excited that they’re done with class, or finished an exam, or successfully closed an old bug? A better question is why everyone has to be so negative.

It's typical American usage where everything is awesome, amazing or exciting. From my British view, without reference to a dictionary, awesome is when you hear fighter jets zoom overhead, or a metal band from in front of the stage, or Niagara Falls, or a mile-long freight train full of rocks shaking the ground as it passes. The target has strength, size and power. An amazing thing is far beyond normal expectations in…

> Changing from licence version 3 to licence version 4 is none of these. It might be satisfying, or perhaps rewarding for the people directly involved.

who are you to say how someone else should feel?

It’s like someone not familiar with coding saying why should software engineers feel excited for releasing something? It’s literally just text you typed. Wow, boring.

Your other examples are literally just your opinion, which is fine. Understand others do not feel the same way necessarily.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#42

Post by DeathArrow »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

In my native language someone being excited means someone being horny.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#44

Post by morpheuskafka »

mg wrote: post #12

What does attribution mean in the context of Wikipedia where each page is created by many authors, most of them pseudonymous, many of them anonymous?

In fact the article addresses this as one of the changes:

> With version 4.0, it is easier for reusers to understand how to credit the original author of the work. For example, it clarifies that linking to a webpage with attribution information is allowable, which is helpful since doing so has already become a common method of providing attribution.

I believe that was standard practice already, hence the use of the term "clarifies," but now it should be spelled out in the license.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#45

Post by DeathArrow »

Symbiote wrote: post #39
endisneigh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever consider that it is exciting for someone to have completed this work successfully? Would you also say it’s strange for someone to be excited that they’re done with class, or finished an exam, or successfully closed an old bug? A better question is why everyone has to be so negative.

It's typical American usage where everything is awesome, amazing or exciting. From my British view, without reference to a dictionary, awesome is when you hear fighter jets zoom overhead, or a metal band from in front of the stage, or Niagara Falls, or a mile-long freight train full of rocks shaking the ground as it passes. The target has strength, size and power. An amazing thing is far beyond normal expectations in…

>It's typical American usage where everything is awesome, amazing or exciting.

The British equivalents being "not too bad", "bloody" or "oh".

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#46

Post by mihaaly »

endisneigh wrote: post #27
RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

Ever consider that it is exciting for someone to have completed this work successfully? Would you also say it’s strange for someone to be excited that they’re done with class, or finished an exam, or successfully closed an old bug? A better question is why everyone has to be so negative.

The emphasis was on "every goddamn thing".

And no, the better question is why everyone has to be pretentious?!

Completing the work is an everyday kind of thing by the way, not some sort of exceptional or rare achievement but common occurrence (if we are optimistic). : )

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#47

Post by [deleted] »

endisneigh wrote: post #41
Symbiote wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's typical American usage where everything is awesome, amazing or exciting. From my British view, without reference to a dictionary, awesome is when you hear fighter jets zoom overhead, or a metal band from in front of the stage, or Niagara Falls, or a mile-long freight train full of rocks shaking the ground as it passes. The target has strength, size and power. An amazing thing is far beyond normal expectations in…

> Changing from licence version 3 to licence version 4 is none of these. It might be satisfying, or perhaps rewarding for the people directly involved. who are you to say how someone else should feel? It’s like someone not familiar with coding saying why should software engineers feel excited for releasing something? It’s literally just text you typed. Wow, boring. Your other examples are literally just your opinion,…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#48

Post by sombremesa »

yankput wrote: post #30

I still love how years ago, Stallman basically added a backdoor to GNU FDL just for wikipedia (and similar wikis) just for the few months when Wikipedia was migrating the license. It worked though to elaborate… wikipedia used to be GNU Free Document License, which is a terrible license. But there was no way to easily migrate to CC, as you would need to contact all the authors and get agreement. So FSF used the “or la…

Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#49

Post by noirscape »

timmb wrote: post #21
npsomaratna wrote: post #2

Could someone more knowledgeable explain what the practical effect of this license change is? As far as I can see, there isn't much of a difference?

I don't know if relevant for Wikipedia, but in CC BY-SA 3.0 where the entire licence was invalidated if you made a mistake with the attribution. I was reading of an exploit where an organisation is publishing photos under the 3.0 licence, searching for minor infractions and then extorting random bloggers and businesses for infringement. I believe the 4.0 licence addresses this by allowing users to fix a faulty attrib…

Yeah it's called copyright trolling because of how similar it is to patent trolling. Version 3.0 of the license isn't usually the favored version though since iirc it did include some mitigations on what's allowed for the whole attribution thing.

The one that's usually preferred is version 2.0, which has some fairly specific attribution requirements that are easy to mess up.

Re: Wikipedia switches to CC BY-SA 4.0 license

#50

Post by danShumway »

DeathArrow wrote: post #42
RicoElectrico wrote: post #3

Why every goddamn thing has to be exciting? Surely American organizational culture is becoming a parody of itself. If anything, this reminds us that American non-profits are run just like corporations.

In my native language someone being excited means someone being horny.

Bold of you to assume that Wikipedia editors and and readers aren't horny for the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. It's an attractive content license.
Post reply on HN