2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
There's the licensing update page on Meta, currently marked as a draft. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but feel free to approach that as the proposal, it's what we've been discussing all along, I believe. We'll probably take off the "draft" status at some point, but there are tradeoffs between formality and retaining the ability to address and incorporate feedback before we vote.
Oh, yes, there is that draft. Obviously, the point at which you take off the "draft" needs to be before the vote - which needs to be sooner rather than later if we're going to have a definite result in time (the Foundation is registered in Florida, after all! ;)).
Incidentally, what contact have you had with CC about how they interpret the license? Particularly regarding the "attribution by reference" issue.