2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
2009/1/22 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
> the medium or means"?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to
agree on what is reasonable.
I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable'
expressed in this thread indicate a need for a more explicit approach.
There is nothing you can do that will remove that from the crediting
clause. Whatever you try to require there will always be a "reasonable
to the medium or means" filter between you and the reuser. Trying to
engineer around it would be unwise.
Whether such different perceptions are as wide-spread
in the broader
author community as they are here is not clear.
And unimportant. The license doesn't take into consideration what the
authors consider reasonable to the medium or means.
I will begin thinking about how a consultative survey
could be
constructed to help inform the process in a timely fashion.
I would suggest that first you try and produce a halfway valid
justification for the 5 name+url proposal before we waste time putting
it out to a survey.
--
geni