On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2009/1/23 George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin
<mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
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.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com