[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Chad]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
degree of attribution, then obviously that takes precedence over
personal preferences.

You say the license says one thing. Other people say it doesn't. It's
obviously a very grey area (if it was black and white, we wouldn't be
having this debate). My only point was to solicit wider feedback, not
have a poll to overrule legal requirements.

-Chad