[Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS

[Anthony]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
> proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow
> sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art
> of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving
> the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
>

I highly doubt you're correct, but moreover I find it astonishing that you
find it admirable to undermine one's own core beliefs.

I think it isn't public knowledge what Erik's  full personal
> feelings on the current proposal are, as it is under vote.
>

I'm assuming good faith that Erik wouldn't work so hard to push for a
proposal he doesn't support.  But I guess you find such behavior admirable,
while I'd find it despicable, so I guess we've reached an impasse.

> The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also
> > includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably
> changes
> > the form of attribution required.
> >
>
> I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
>
> Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly
> confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have
> been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form
> for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not
> convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the
> absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think
> differently.
>

Once again you're trying to argue a belief which you yourself do not hold.
In this case it's a quite clearly absurd belief, though.  If the move
changes nothing, why make it?  I guess someone might dispute what I said by
changing the meaning of the word "attribution", but I don't consider that a
dispute in substance.

In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the individual right
to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone who supports that
right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote at all.  If you
want to nitpick whether or not this is indisputable, fine, I'll let you have
your way.  But indisputable or not, it is a true fact.