[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[geni]

2009/2/3 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> 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.

As an author you can accept any form of credit you like. You cannot
demand credit beyond what is reasonable to the medium or means.

> You say the license says one thing. Other people say it doesn't.

Yes. Strangely none of them are people a recognise from dealing with
wikipedia's day to day copyright issues.

> It's
> obviously a very grey area (if it was black and white, we wouldn't be
> having this debate).

No it's a very B&W area (at least the bit we are arguing over). People
are trying to cloud the issue.

>My only point was to solicit wider feedback, not
> have a poll to overrule legal requirements.

Until people stop proposing stuff that isn't legal wider feedback is
of only limited use.


-- 
geni