On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
allowing editors who insist on being listed to be listed
I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help and if it's opt-out if probably won't make things much easier.
Why?
If we assert a default "sense of the community" that the URL is
reasonable,
and allow individual authors to override that (and consequently annoy readers and redistributors in the future) how does that negatively affect any author's rights or property?
Either it's reasonable, or it's not. If you feel the need to give people the option of opting out, then obviously you think it isn't reasonable. Also, why should people that have edited in the past and then moved on not get the same rights as current editors?
No, I think it is reasonable. If I were the License Czar we'd just do that and be done with it.
But this is a community, with some people with aggressively diverse opinions. Imposing from above without flexibility causes pain and suffering and hurt feelings and people leaving the project and firey poo-flinging monkeys on UFOs to descend from the heavens.
I think that overall, we have to do something like the proposed CC-BY-SA-3.0 details to balance author, reader, project, and content reuser interests, and I believe that that's ultimately not negotiable.
Optimizing the implementation of BY so that people who agree that GFDL -> CC is good but who disagree on the BY credit-by-web approach can still stay included, while still balancing reader and project and content reuser needs with author needs, is a good thing. A default to the reasonable approach, with exception allowed for objectors, works fine for that.