[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

geni geniice at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 02:57:25 UTC 2009

2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model
> is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use
> attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i)
> and 4(c)(iii).

 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is  through

Again lets go through that section you have two things you can attribute to:

"the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied"

However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half:

"if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or
parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for
attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice,
terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party
or parties;"

So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part
of the clause but trying to define say
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&action=history" as an
Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the
paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party.

Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it
still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from
time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third


More information about the foundation-l mailing list