Template talk:Authors

Authors
This is an attempt to make it possible to give attributions, claim authorship and grant any rights under the license used on Wikibooks. The use of this template has legal implications. If you are interested in the subject read carefully the Wikibooks copyright statement existing in each page the draft of Wikibooks talk:Ownership and it's talk page. --Panic (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the comment about Source code
How is the bit about source code important to say Biblical Studies/Authors? Also, why is this acceptable? How do we know permission has been obtained from the other people that contribute to the books that use this template? Who are we to relicense their contributions into the public domain? My opinion is that we cannot course we cannot only the copyright holder's themselves can do that. Only the people themselves do that, and as this requirement is not part of our terms of use, then individual books cannot do this. Especially after the book has had source code contributed to it before any such claims about the public domain where in place as with C++ Programming. Thenub314 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If the book has no source code, "Any source code included..." it becomes void. It is a template it could probably be reworked to make it facultative, in any case only the right owners my decide if it is acceptable or not, in the specific case of Biblical Studies no one has claimed rights over that work, my use of the template was to give attributions to Wikipedia... (For historical context the template was exclusive to the C++ Programming namespace it was later moved to the global namespace)
 * Permissions are given by anyone that states rights over the work. Regarding the issue of source code in general the issue is more extensive and a solution like we use for images would be needed (having each source code that is copyrightable and constitutes or permits stand alone use to be licensed on its own) for instance before the recent license change to be legal if a user took the code and used it on his computer he would have to include a copy of the GFDL (for use and redistribution).
 * If you aren't claiming ownership over a source code or a work the Authors page is irrelevant to you. If a copyright holder has a claim he can always use the established practice to correct issues or request a pulldown of the work.  --Panic (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Notice that some source code on the C++ Programming has included an author or mentions other licenses IIRC GPL. If have issues with the use of the template on the Biblical Studies feel free to substitute it by a similar text that provides the necessary acknowledgment to Wikipedia. --Panic (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the public domain notice violates copyright law since it is not part of any terms of use for Wikibooks and people cannot be expected to be aware of the notice nor to have agreed to those terms. I think the only safe option is to assume that source code is released under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA when there is no message included with the source code to the contrary and a user that submitted the code does not have a message on the user page stating otherwise. --dark lama  00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it can be a problem, but only to copyright claims and those can be easily addressed. If you remember Robert did put forward that the submit phrase should mention that situation. There is also the issue of dual license before the licensed change we had a work that was dual licensed (IIRC Swift was the proponent) and there are other cases, some I have pointed out before some are even more ambiguous like More C++ Idioms/Detached Counted Body (notice the last lines), In that particular case I really don't have a formed opinion I can't even state over what Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs Innovations. is claiming ownership (the source code or the concept), I do however see a conflict in regards to use as Wikibooks licenses don't prevent commercial use of the content, but I decided not to make waves as if there is a problem the rights owners should be the ones making them evident (this is also my approach to general copyvio issues, even if I understand some benefits in being proactive in some instances).  --Panic (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a problem not only for copyright claims, but also for anyone wishing to reuse it because they might incorrectly assume that there are no limits or restriction on the use of the source code when there may in fact be limits or restrictions. --dark lama  02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In general terms that is not the case since public domain is less restrictive than our licenses, hence the benefit in adding the line about source code to the authors page. It makes clear that if a piece of code doesn't clear indicate a license it is PD, not even the persons listed as authors are claiming owning them. If any code is added that is not PD or does not conform in license with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL, then the submit phrasing makes it an issue, for instance a GPL source would not be usable if we intended to be strict about the interpretation and value of it. In fact source code that does not conform to our licenses would be more similar to fair use images, in any case a huge change on the system would be required to really address in full the issue of source code. Until we have a problem requiring a pull down of this type of content we should only attempt to make sure any licenses or copyrights are clearly stated. --Panic (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you miss darklama's point. The point is that the reuser has legal liability they did not know they had.  Hypothetically suppose some user Cppmaster appears and adds many good examples of code in writing the book.  Later I come along and think "Hey those are awesome, I want to put them in my C++ book.  Since they are public domain I don't even need to provide a link to wikibooks (because WB has a much better book. If people know it exists why buy my book?).  Then Cppmaster sues me.  He says he never agreed for his code to be PD, he never saw this notice, it doesn't apply to him.  Well it would be a legal mess to sort out.  If I had known at the start it was only creative commons at the beginning, I would have included the link to WB and sold a few less books instead of paying for a lawyer and possibly paying royalties to Cppmaster.  I suggest you go the other way.  Place a userbox on your user page that says "Any samples of code posted this user on wikibooks are released into the public domain."  As it stands this public domain statement should come out of the template. Thenub314 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can do so with user pd or MultiLicensePD. – Adrignola talk 04:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These seem to be site wide user licenses, going beyond a specific book. They are useful, to avoid confusion, but ownership/authorship has to be directly claimed (mostly like signing one's work), can't be attributed by a third party.
 * An example of the submit clause limitations is when using content that is not created by the contributor and the attribution of rights only by relying only on the edit history. --Panic (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In case of that type of problem, the final user of a miss licensed work can be ordered by a court to stop distribution, and can claim compensation for losses to the culprit (among other variations), in a wiki (and in Wikimedia project) that liability is limited but indeed it is a problem for those that decide to claim authorship (it goes with the responsibility bit). In any case Wikimedia will never be in danger per the Terms of Use. This limited liability is valid even contributors that don't claim authorship, they are open to be targeted by a copyright infringement process, but since this is a non-profit venture, I doubt that anything very grave would come of that, but if the work is used commercially then it becomes extremely problematic.
 * The information on the authors page is as valuable as the submit clause (even if I agree that it is not as visible), anyone contributing to a book is doing just that, it is responsible for understanding what and for what he is contributing, books are expected to be self contained works (this is different from Wikipedia). In any case the problem with source code is not a specific problem with one book, it is a problem with all books that use source code (as I said similar to the use of images). I can't remember what was said by I recall that this issue was already discussed with User:Robert Horning (a Wikibookian that claimed and to my understanding demonstrated good knowledge of US copyright law) and an understanding on Wikimedia rulings on those aspect and the history of the project.
 * I would subscribe any attempt to make Wikimedia define what is acceptable. --Panic (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about the following for compromises.
 * Either we make a template similar in spirit to the ones above but allows for us to specify which books it applies to.
 * Or we take down the statement for the time being and contact the WMF for clarification from their copyright lawyers, they certainly know the law better then us. Thenub314 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To compromise it would require you had made a specific point I could agree or refuse to object too or something we can meet in the middle, literally something that each side makes concessions over, examining your proposal it is clear you aren't making any concessions.
 * So far no specific point has been made, yes we have lots of unknowables but they seem to be the same and so have equal value. In fact I have shown you that there are and have been far more complex issues in similar situations or with similar impact, that the issue regarding source code is a system/project wide issue that this template is attempting to address. Notice that the template also provides a statement about image licenses, most books do not.
 * Since you are not claiming that you have added code to the works that isn't PD or hasn't a compatible license information, you don't have any motive to object to the template use. Any code that fails those characteristics will be removed as not compatible with the licenses of Wikibooks (as is normal to all incompatible content). The prevarication issue Darklama raised can happen with or without the template, in fact in most uses of the template I'm taking part of the responsibility if that happens.
 * Note also that templates above are for userspace not particularly suitable to be added to books. In any case I don't have any issue in you adding another template to Biblical Studies as I said I only added this one because the work needed attributions. Did I miss something in the shuffle ? How do you still see the present state as problematic ? --Panic (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I still find the current situation problematic. The statement I took out was put back in verbatim, so it is difficult to feel like anything I am concerned with has been address. As I said in the beginning:
 * 1) By adding this statement other peoples code has been relicenced without their agreement or permission. If I was caught unaware about this, it seems safe to assume other users will be (or have been) as well.
 * 2) I feel should not place a copyright notice a book that requires stricter requirements (in terms of giving up rights) than our Terms of Use. Particularly since we cannot agree people contributing to the book have seen or accepted these terms.
 * 3) I believe Darklama is correct this statement could also prove to be problematic for reusers.

I admit that the first possibility of making a more specific disclaimer on your user page was more of an alternative then a compromise. However, if the WMF said it was acceptable to use this claimer there would still be the question should we use the disclaimer. As a contributor to one of the books where this disclaimer is displayed my answer would be normally be no. The compromise was meant to be that, yes I will agree to it if the WMF says it is ok.

I have thought of a third possibility, which may or may not be seen as a compromise. Instead of marking source code that isn't public domain we instead mark that code that is public domain. This way if someone is unaware of the notice, no problem they will not mark their source code as public domain. We could even creative and make a public domain template that puts a box around the source tags in a box and at the bottom of the box buts in very small type "public domain". A person using such a template would realize they were including their work on the public domain. Thenub314 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer is ambiguous enough not to cause any issues ("Any source code included if not bearing a different statement shall be considered under the public domain.") you can interpret it in several way including, a way that the Wikibooks license is in effect. That view will resolve your dilemma.
 * There are no stricter requirements anywhere. What do you see as stricter requirements ?
 * Reuse is problematic with or without the disclaimer, can you guarantee that all source conforms with the project's licenses ? You can't, and I can affirm that they don't, that is why we have the copyvio process for those issues. What changes here ?
 * In case you still don't get that this specific problem you are creating is void of value, feel free to put forward your concern to the "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" or help define a site wide policy (enforcible) that supports your view and if possible address all the issues I presented (remember to salvage the relevant content removed on the recently altered draft). --Panic (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer is an issue whether it i ambiguous or not. Users probably won't get that "a different statement" means or could imply the statement seen when submitting works, the Media policy, the Copyright page, or the Terms of Use page. If the Wikibooks license is in effect than the disclaimer is equivalent to an empty statement which isn't helpful.
 * Just because nobody can guarantee that all source code conforms with the project's license doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Nothing changes, by default contributions are assumed to be available under Wikibooks' license, unless there is reasonable evidence to the contrary, like another website has the same material.
 * I think there isn't a need to define a new site wide policy. The Terms of Use and Copyrights pages apply by default, and if there is a license statement for a specific example than the Media policy applies. If a license for a specific example is incompatible than it should be deleted. If there is reasonable evidence to believe that an example is copyrighted and was used without permission than it should be deleted. --dark lama  22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are going around in circles and I'm not making myself understood.
 * The statement is required because source code has the same issues that we have with images (if you don't understand that then there is no point in continue this discussion as you will never understand what I'm speaking of). That is not a problem with my template, but is a system issue, you can find source code for instance in the Ada book that has its specific license and copyright owner. In any case we (you and me) have already discussed this issue many times...
 * That is why the disclaimer is used, to remove any doubts that the code can be used in stand alone form without complicated licenses like the GFDL or a specific reference to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 (even more since there may be no-one to attribute the code, a copyright owner).
 * I don't fully fallow you here. The disclaimer is not a license (see the difference if you don't understand the concept), it is just a clarification. AS I pointed out before the GPL (and others) are not compatible with the GFDL and (I think) the CC-BY_SA 3.0, if you really intend to treat them as normal content, you have already much cleanup work pending before getting into the hypothetical. Of course I will object to such treatment since I defend that source code has a specific need for licensing (much like the images, as stated before), my solution solves the issue to deal with that in system, since unlike images source code is text and in many instances already includes the necessary copyright declaration. --Panic (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to change the discussion here. It is too focused on who is correct or incorrect.  Let's put aside the explicit discussions of GFDL, GPL, CC-BY_SA 3.0.  The point is that Darklama and I disagree with the inclusion of this disclaimer into the book.  You can't just unilaterally decide it goes back in. Leaving the statement in as is simply isn't an option.  We need to find some constructive way to make sure we are all happy with the end result, so we need some ideas.  To modify an idea I had above, if snippets of code should be treated like images, let's treat them more like images with the means we have available to us.  We could create a template that places small link at the bottom of the box for the code.  The link go be followed to the appropriate licensing information for that snippet of code, what ever that may be (a copy of GPL, a list of authors and the license, etc.).  If this is unacceptable what would you suggest? Thenub314 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just shown you that this was the best solution I came about without making a system wide change that would require every source code that is present on our works to require that licensing information or be deleted (that will be extremely damaging to our project).
 * If you still don't understand what is at issue, read the Wikibooks:Media and substitute images by source code, remove the fair use concept (that can be valid to snippets by most uses are to small to get copyright coverage, in any case for instance on the Windows books, using the examples of the Win32 API would fall under fair use), you will notice that even then incompatible licensed code will constitute a problem so a special type of limited use would be required.
 * These are legal matters if you intend to change this solution you are the one that has to come up with a viable alternative.
 * I'm an author on at least 2 works that use will use source code, I need to be clear to users that I'm not claiming any right over "some" of the code (I may add parts of code that I will require attribution or license under the GPL/BSD etc), ad that the included code, if not stating otherwise, is free to reuse (doesn't get the automatic copyright protection).
 * I respect your concerns and think I have addressed them sufficient to show you that there is no cause for them, that in fact there are more grave issues behind this. We already have established forms to deal with any violation of the copyright.
 * In any case this was how I as author/copyright owner decided to establish my rights and how I require those works to be attributed as per our policies. I will be thinking in ways of improving it. --Panic (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear that no action has been taken to address my nor darklama's concerns. I understand you felt this was the best solution make your intentions clear to users, but it doesn't make make things clear at all, it mistakenly gives the impression that any code which does not explicitly have disclaimer to the contrary next to it is in the public domain.  I am also a author and copyright holder over part of at least C++ Programming, and I feel this solution is inappropriate.  I can't blame you for being bold and adding the disclaimer, but it is a bit frustrating you repeatedly tell us this is fine when we tell you this is a problem.  I am going to attempt to put something a bit in between taking it out completely and leaving it as is.  Let me know what you think. Thenub314 (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a small addition and I can live with it. But noticed that any source code that doesn't now have a license information is in limbo (regarding use and distribution outside of the book's context). That is not a problem specific to the project but an issue created by the copyright law that abolished the need to state a copyright statement on works making any work presumable to be copyrighted, my solution attempted to make that bit clearer and was less verbose. --Panic (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, but I still have a small issue with the last sentence, as I intended to add myself to the authors list of C++ Programming (pending the resolution of our disagreement or lack thereof depending on who you ask) and the last sentence would no longer be true for the both of us. Ah wait, I have a clever thought that could make this clearer, will right it up later. Thenub314 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have implemented my idea, but you may want to add an asterisks next to your name at some of the other books that use this template. Thenub314 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly agree with the last change as the template is to be generic if other authors have other requirements they should simply create their version of the template. I'm even considering making a copy of the template to my userspace and restructuring it so to reflect it my own specific attribution requirements in place of attempting to provide a general framework to other Wikibookians. Something on the lines of what you proposed earlier. The previous text was clear enough for my understanding if people needed to state a right they would include it to the source there was no need to state it specifically here (it now also makes it seem that any one that doesn't list his name on the authors page will not be able to claim rights over the source code). --Panic (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked like you and I were both editing at the same time each with our own ideas, and in the process I may have accidentally ruined what you had in mind. Feel free to comment or add the asterisk back if you feel it is still needed. --dark lama  14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So if everyone can live it then it is fine by me. Thenub314 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All this considerations are important an is beneficial to the project that more Wikibookians become aware of the subject (and the distinctions), for example I also see people claiming authorship based on the creation of works, in that specific cases under the copyright law creation doesn't mean the same as initiating a book project. In any case this subject as we already talked is important and should be under community discussion and decision and some deeper topic would even require Wikimedia to take a clear position. --Panic (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)