2009/1/8 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on whether to support the vote. However the absence of any guidance about what is appropriate attribution strikes me as a strong reason to be critical.
Not really. Firstly the WMF is in no position to provide such advice. It is not a significant copyright holder and it doesn't write the license. Major wikipedia authors and CC are in a far better position.
Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution should be reasonable "reasonable to the medium or means". Quite apart from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system the range of medium means that the resources needed for the guidance section are immense consider:
Plastic models stained galss Globes with maps on them Cameo (carving) Wood pannel painting knitting Portrait photographs Ceramic sculpture metal cannon models maps computer games documentaries quiz books magazines Ceramic cups Engravings on Tankards music on magnetic tapes music by popular beat combos on vinyl records popularly known as ah "45s" etc
All of which I can see without moveing from where I'm sitting or indeed turning around.
In fact if you actually feel that there is some benefit in non binding guidelines that are very firmly not legal advice then it may be time to start a new wikimedia project or the very least some form of project on commons. A new wikimedia project would probably be a better way of addressing it.