Talk:Attribution: Difference between revisions
people who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created
(history suffices for attribution to major contributors) |
(people who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:[[Wikipedia]] complies with the attribution to five or more authors by offering the full history of the page. IANAL, though. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 10:52, 17 Jun 2004 (EEST) | :[[Wikipedia]] complies with the attribution to five or more authors by offering the full history of the page. IANAL, though. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 10:52, 17 Jun 2004 (EEST) | ||
::No, they don't export that full history via the [[XML]], so, anyone who picks it up cannot [[share-alike]] the material without being subject to attacks from [[Wikimedia]]. Also they don't show the five authors in the printable version. | |||
:::These are issues that should be taken up with the developers of [[MediaWiki]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:34, 18 Jun 2004 (EEST) | |||
::::Lying little criminals like [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Tim Starling]] who hand out [[vandalbot]] code like party favours any time someone tells the truth about them? Unlikely. People who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created - especially when some of the people involved are part of an [[echo chamber]] and [[libel pit]]. | |||
::::Legally, all [[Wikimedia]] deserves is a cease and desist order. It is not up to someone who is disadvantaged by their [[GFDL violation]]s to go begging to their pet geeks. [[Wikipedia]] is very clearly violating the [[GFDL]] on the [[attribution]] clause, and, other clauses. | |||