I just want to be clear that I think these pseudo-legal interpretations are
holding us back from figuring out what people want.
Hopefully we can discuss the poll questions before they get posted to make
sure they fairly present the options under consideration.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:
You have a very clear sense of what is legal and
what is not.
However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
have been brought up in court.
They don't come up often but that doesn't mean that FSF and CC
determine what is legal.
The FSF and CC determine what the licenses
"say" and whether or not a potential break with particular verbiage is in
the spirit of the licenses. They've already demonstrated that what the
licenses say are flexible to the needs of the WMF.
Flexibility has it's limits.
You can argue all day long about what licenses
"actually" say. Ultimately
I
don't think there will be that much of an
issue in that area.
Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates tried that one. They lost.
The real thing
we need to discover are the needs of the WMF. What kind of attribution is
*most
consistent with the goals of the projects?
*Flexible attribution of
course.
We are leaving the GFDL for good reason - no need
to drag it along with
us
in the change to CC-BY-SA.
Changes we would like to see in CC-BY-SA-3.X/4.0 are a very separate
issue from how to we manage the switchover to 3.0. There are some
other very big players in the CC field. Expecting CC to go along with
whatever we decide is not a sensible strategy (particularly when you
consider at least one of the crediting options suggested would allow
for the crediting of every flickr image to yahoo).
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l