Anthony writes:
On the other hand, the history page *could* be
interpreted as being
part of
the Document.
Even if it's on a different server?
For online copies, as I've said before, I
don't see much problem
with this.
As I've said before, it's hard to draw the line as to what is part
of the
work and what is not part of the work, when it comes to online
sources. But
I don't think the same argument can be made for offline copies.
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
legal rights.)
My main concern is that CC-BY-SA will be deliberately
misinterpreted
to not
require direct attribution - and the published draft of the RfC
confirms
that this concern is valid.
So you think an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when
the article is online is "direct"? But an online attribution on a
separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not*
"direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this
distinction?
--Mike