On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
could be proud of your work but not at least prefer your name to be on
If you've achieved something of great value
to yourself and to others,
it better for you, and for everyone, if people
know you achieved it?
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing that you produced something make the idea any
better or worse than it would be without that knowledge. How is knowing
that you did it better for everyone? Pride, after all, is one of the
seven deadly sins.
Well, David said he *is* proud of his work, so your "seven deadly sins"
argument apparently isn't the one he was resting on. As for how sharing
your name is better for everyone, I think it's fairly clear that a work of
non-fiction is better if you know who wrote it, and further I think it's
also clear that when someone creates a great work it is beneficial to know
who created it so that one can find more works by that person. So that's
how it benefits society. How it benefits the individual is even more
obvious, to the point that I don't even think I have to explain it.
As I said, there are certainly exceptions to this, but in general I think it
holds, and even if it held in only some cases I think that would be enough
to protect the right.
there's an inherent
validity in the desire to be named in a work you produced in at least
circumstances which arise in Wikimedia projects.
Then let's predefine those circumstances.
The "pre" in predefine implies that you're not changing the rules after the
fact. And if you're not interested in changing the rules after the fact,
then there's no reason to change the license.