On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2009/1/22 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com
wrote:
It all boils down to how you define
"reasonable", and that's usually
left to laymen, not lawyers.
Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy
phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what
form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be
reasonable."
It's what a jury deems reasonable, rather than the author(s), isn't it?
The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
is in fact reasonable.
Of course, this all depends on the court's idea of 'reasonable' too,
so we're back to the same issue :)
-Chad