[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Nikola Smolenski]

George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> wrote:
>> Translation: what we are doing right now is wrong and no one complains
>> too loudly, therefore we may get away with being even more wrong in the
>> future.
> 
> No, what we are doing now is not wrong.  What we're doing now is uniformly
> and universally accepted in the en.wp community and nearly all the rest of
> them.  Claiming that it's wrong is like calling black white.

Something could be uniformly and universally accepted, and still wrong. 
This is one of such things.

Anyway, you are missing the point entirely. Online, where everything is 
a click away, having a link to the article history is practically the 
same thing as reproducing the list of authors. Of course, it would be 
even better if we would have the ability to display a list of authors, 
better still if we could somehow separate major and minor contributors 
and so on.

But the issue here is appropriate attribution offline. It is proposed 
that appropriate attribution in a print work is a printed URL of the 
list of authors. Me and other people believe that this isn't actually 
appropriate.