[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[David Gerard]

2008/10/22 Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>:

> I might add that the attribution requirement of the GFDL talks about
> listing at least five principal authors, "unless they release you from
> this requirement." A fairly straightforward argument can be made that
> existing and accepted practice on Wikipedia, and for that matter on
> nearly all wikis, amounts to releasing subsequent distributors from this
> requirement. If the authors can make this implicit release, then you
> have to look at whatever attribution is customary in a given context,
> along with any moral rights issues.


In any case, this discussion has already reached the stage of counting
angels dancing on the heads of pins and assuming that law is as
brittle as computer code. It just ain't so.

The threat model we're taking about is: what does a reuser say if
taken to court by an insane and obsessive author? Would a judge
consider the reuser's actions reasonable, given accepted behaviour
regarding said licence to date? That sort of squishy, arguable, grey
area thing.


- d.