Chad writes:
I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license with highly debatable terms.
Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen one.
--Mike
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen one.
--Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL is not far off.
In any case vagueness has it's uses since any attempt to try and define everything will tend to result in the license either failing or behaving in a very unhelpful manner under certain conditions.
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Chad writes:
I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license with highly debatable terms.
Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen one.
It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Chad writes:
I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license with highly debatable terms.
Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen one.
It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.
Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.
--Michael Snow
2009/1/22 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.
Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.
How do you deal with every possible situation in a way that makes sense without adding length? Unless you want to go for something extremely simple, in which case you'll probably find you're just releasing your work into the public domain.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org