Topic: Bitcoin Weekly vs btc::log (Read 1597 times)

You know what? I don't really care about this attribution business anymore.

Rather focus on more interesting stuff like making cardboard gears and making bitcoinweekly more awesome.(Would like the magazine to be more active than this month)

For the 1044th time, the purpose of these license is to declare the suspension all of copyright power I have. I don't know how to make that statement clearer to you.

Do you really need to tell that to someone who is already planning to do that?

At this stage I'm not even sure you're qualified to properly dictate what you think you want...

... try look at it this way. What you're doing is the same thing as a "free fruit" shelf out in front of a church, with a donation bowl. Take some fruit, and feel free to leave a donation. Then taking video/photos of everyone who doesn't leave a donation and post them publicly on the church bulletin board. If you have a sign saying "please leave a donation if you take fruit", then that's fine - anyone who takes fruit without leaving a donation is a bit of an asshole anyway.

But you don't have any such sign or message, other than these threads, that I can see in a cursory look. In fact your uncopyright notice at the bottom specifically says the opposite, or maybe the language of the "do whatever the fuck you want public license" is a bit ambiguous for you? Your uncopyright notice says "do what the fuck you want", but your actions are saying "do what the fuck you want, but if I don't like it I reserve the right to retaliate." Those are not the same principles.

Seriously, update your footer to say what you really want out of your license, and you wouldn't be in this mess. Also, as I said, you saying "pirate the heck out of it" and then turning around and asserting a request for attribution after the fact is pretty offensive.

Look, I am just publishing a list of people who do not attribute the source of the content. It's literally true facts of what's happening.

I ask you to attribute the content to my magazine. You said no. I write it down because that is what exactly happens. Is there a threat of lawsuit? Jailtime? Google censoring? Extortion? Takedown Notice? Perhaps, other bad or good things will happen to you, but that is not my fault. I only recorded information!

I had already told people that I am not interested in having copyright power, thus a CC-BY license is totally inappropriate for what I want to achieve. Thus, I will change the copyright notice slightly and mentioned the facts that I will write down the name of the people who refuse my request. It isn't done right now(and due to technical issue in deployment) because I didn't foreseen this situation. Once that happen, that way everyone knows of my new policy to write down the person who respond to my request with a no. If btc::log didn't do the attribution thing for all the bitcoinweekly content they posted, they will be noted for the first to do so and is instrumental in starting this policy of writing down people who did not attribute content to my magazine.

If you don't understand the nuance of legal/obligatory force and recording true information that may embarrass or not, it's your fault. If you still don't understand that a CC0 is exactly what I want at the end of this sentence, it's your fault.

If elggawf wrote this on btc::log he could have earned himself 1BTC and joined the Winners Circle!  Maybe next time.

You don't see the obvious contradiction between "completely voluntary" and your next line:


You've sure got a funny idea of "voluntary", and personally I think it puts all of your advocacy of Bitcoin in a rather "interesting" light (considering that IMHO one of the best parts about participation in Bitcoin is it's actually voluntary).

"Requested" under a threat of naming+shaming is not voluntary, and in my humble opinion I still stand by the belief you picked the wrong license. At the very least, don't try and patronize pirates by saying "pirate it all you want" at the bottom of your pages if you don't mention that you request attribution when it's used.

my license is twice more liberal than uz 

No, I really wanted a CC0 or public domain. I really want attribution to be completely voluntary.

There is a big difference between "you must attribute the content or I talk to lawyers and sue you" and "pretty please attribute or I write down that you didn't fulfill my request for attribution".

It seems to me like Kiba licensed his shit, but didn't understand the ramifications of the license(s) he chose, or wanted the recognition for the license without anyone actually taking him up on using it.

What it sounds to me like is that Kiba really wants a CC-BY license, not CC0 or public domain. Do not release your shit into the public domain if you want to come along later and insist on this or that, because public domain explicitly waives your right to insist on most of these things. Choose your license carefully, as in most cases public domain and CC licenses are irrevocable (I am not a copyright lawyer I just play one on the internet).

Of course he's within his rights to make a list of people who take his public domain writings and publish them without attribution, but it's a huge douche thing to do. Either it's public domain or it's not, and to reiterate it sounds like he really wanted CC-BY, not CC0.

Has this been resolved? How is this even an issue when bitcoinweekly has a public domain license?

I'm new to licenses, but can you say, "Do whatever you want with my material" then add "..but you have to credit me" ?

At least it's in the realm of open source, licenses, and all the other basic underpinnings of Bitcoin.  There have been worst threads on this forum, LOL.  I will admit we are having a little fun with this on both sides. "Wall of No Attribution", LOL.

This isn't a great way to spam ones forums.

I am not going to be involved in the copyright system. I am a copyright abolitionist.

Yes, it is a simple line of text:

"Originally published by Bitcoin Weekly"

But they're arguing how it's completely optional and that what the license said..blahblahbblahblah. So I told them "either honor my request or it's Hall of No Attribution for you buddies".

kiba change your license to at least ask for credit, btclog credit bitcoin weekly this fighting over a line of text is just silly

It's not a matter of "requiring attribution."  Kiba is asking for voluntary attribution. That's the difference.

In this case, I am asking you, without a threat of lawsuit or takedown notice....or face my Hall of No Attribution. Also, I will be modifying my footer and policy tonight to mention that if there is no proper attribution for both author or source, I will put them on the Hall of No Attribution with mentioned offenses. This reflect the results of the btclog incident that changed my mind.

The copyright notice waiver will remain, but it doesn't mean that you can trample upon my economic self-interest!

Isn't that the difference between CCO and any number of CC licenses that require attribution.  Why does Kiba feel like he is entitled to have it both ways.  The distributor has the least amount of rights and what it seems like he is saying is,  "I could care less about copyright for the original authors; I just care that everyone know I published it" No one cares who originally published "A Tale of Two Cities", we all know who the author is. 

If attribution is required it's easy enough to get, so why not ask for it.  You can't have it both ways Kiba.

If the original source of the article requests that you cite the source (and not just the authors), then it would be polite to do so.

Bitcoin Weekly is a wonderful publication.  We think so highly of it we decided to lift a couple of their stories and reprint them on our forum.  We think so highly of them we credit the original authors and all internal links in the stories link back to BitcoinWeekly.  We think so highly of them we invited the editor to come on as our editor in chief; he declined.  So here is the rub, we'll start out with their license which is at the bottom of every page:


We think it's well within our right to provide ample credit to Bitcoin Weekly via links without posting an ad on every page.  Not that we won't work something out.  We just want to make sure we are well within our rights.  For the record btc::log also uses CC0 which is why we are enjoying this little match of wills.

We think this is mostly about ego since the law is clear and license on Bitcoin Weekly is so shockingly clear.  We attribute the "original" authors and we think that is what really matters.  Getting their ideas out there unencumbered by any organization is probably why the license was structured that way from the very beginning.  Anyway join in the discussion here:

http://www.btclog.com/discussion/23/please-credit-bitcoin-weekly