[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[geni]

2009/2/3 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
> Is a link to Wikipedia enough?

no

> A link to the article?

No

> A list of top
> authors?

No

> A link to the full history?

If the full history is on your website then it depends on what you are doing.

>Include the full history?

Yes but overkill.

>There's
> a lot of varying opinions on this list, and its very easy to see that
> any sort of compromise is going to be difficult. On some aspects
> of this, everyone is going to have to make concessions.

I'm arguing from a position of what the law says. The law does not
have to make concessions.


> The one question that remains in my mind is: how many people
> share your views? Some people are very adamant about full
> attribution. Do you know how many people support your position
> (and I'm not talking about on this list)?

At the moment whoever wrote the current CC license and you can look up
the voting records for the most recent lot of copyright law through
congress.

This isn't something you can get around.

> This is the only point I wanted to reply to out of Erik's e-mail. To be
> perfectly honest, I would be fascinated by the results of the survey.

The law is not subject to a wikimedia survey.


> I only think a poll of the community could settle the issue. Is
> there any point in requiring full attribution if only 0.001% of the
> community desires it?

Yes it is unlawful to do otherwise. Attribution has to meet the
requirements of "provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if
applicable)"

Short of deleting pretty much everything and starting again you can't
get around this.

-- 
geni