[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[Michael Snow]

Robert Rohde wrote:
> Let me make a radical suggestion.  One that, for the moment, ignores
> all those overbearing legal questions.
>
> Why not assume that the appropriate amount of attribution for a
> Wikipedia article is essentially the amount that it has now?
>
> When you look at a Wikipedia article there is no list of authors
> (principal or otherwise).  There is simply a link to "history", a
> statement at the bottom of the page saying that the content is under
> the GFDL, and a link to the GFDL.  On the Wikipedia page itself, that
> is essentially the full extent of the licensing and attribution.
>
> I assume that practically all Wikipedia contributors are comfortable
> with recieving this very low level of attribution for Wikipedia
> articles.
>   
I might add that the attribution requirement of the GFDL talks about 
listing at least five principal authors, "unless they release you from 
this requirement." A fairly straightforward argument can be made that 
existing and accepted practice on Wikipedia, and for that matter on 
nearly all wikis, amounts to releasing subsequent distributors from this 
requirement. If the authors can make this implicit release, then you 
have to look at whatever attribution is customary in a given context, 
along with any moral rights issues.

Which is why I never get particularly worked up with people's concerns 
about attribution. As Mike Godwin pointed out, we do seek to maintain 
attribution in our own way, and most people are willing to accept and 
work with that.

--Michael Snow