[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:
> 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.

There is no inoculation to prevent insanity and obsession.  Whatever 
model is chosen can provide opportunities for the litigious.  Thus if we 
go with the five principal authors, what's to prevent number six from 
arguing that he should be in the top five.

In the general case I think that any reuser who exercises a modicum of 
good faith and due diligence will likely be safe  Accepted behaviour 
will also be influenced by past practice including the chronic failure 
of rights owners (not WMF) to protect their own rights

Ec