[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[geni]

2009/1/8 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> I concur.  The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
> attribution to look like.  Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
> whether to support the vote.  However the absence of any guidance
> about what is appropriate attribution strikes me as a strong reason to
> be critical.

Not really. Firstly the WMF is in no position to provide such advice.
It is not a significant copyright holder and it doesn't write the
license. Major wikipedia authors and CC are in a far better position.

Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution
should be reasonable "reasonable to the medium or means". Quite apart
from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system
the range of medium means that the resources needed for the guidance
section are immense consider:

Plastic models
stained galss
Globes with maps on them
Cameo (carving)
Wood pannel painting
knitting
Portrait photographs
Ceramic sculpture
metal cannon models
maps
computer games
documentaries
quiz books
magazines
Ceramic cups
Engravings on Tankards
music on magnetic tapes
music by popular beat combos on vinyl records popularly known as ah "45s"
etc

All of which I can see without moveing from where I'm sitting or
indeed turning around.

In fact if you actually feel that there is some benefit in non binding
guidelines that are very firmly not legal advice then it may be time
to start a new wikimedia project or the very least some form of
project on commons. A new wikimedia project would probably be a better
way of addressing it.


-- 
geni