2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accomplish that under the new license, then the license is probably inadequate for our needs.
Now we don't have to cover every way that CC-BY-SA might be used. And we don't have to go through every possible complication that might occur with wiki content. But I do think we must be prepared to give concrete examples of how the license may be used in common applications, and that requires being willing to confront the question of "reasonable" attribution.
If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it.
For the record, I am open to the idea that we might well be able to get nearly everyone to agree on a set of "reasonable" usage guidelines consistent with the terms and spirit of CC-BY-SA, but I agree with Thomas that it is important that we address that either before or concurrent with the relicensing effort.
Excellently put, I agree 100%.