[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[geni]

2009/1/21 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> 2009/1/20 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>>  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
>> 4(c)(i).
>
> You are making an unsupported assertion. CC-BY-SA is precisely
> structured (as are all BY licenses) to support attribution URIs; that
> is why 4(c)(iii) exists.

So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your
approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c)

"You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"

That is an and command not an or. You have to meet everything from
4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iv)

Still lets pretend you can treat 4(c)(iii) as the sole credit clause

"to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not
refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;
and"

First problem is that it clearly isn't a credit clause (since the
license repeated views copyright notices and credit as two separate
things) now it is possible we could consider "licensing information"
to include credit but I find that definition highly questionable. Then
there is the "to the extent reasonably practicable" bit. By claiming
4(c)(iii) is a credit clause you are arguing that credit only need be
given  "to the extent reasonably practicable" rather than as an
absolute credit must be given (in a form reasonable to the medium or
means). Yet again this is completely unacceptable.


> CC metadata standards allow for attribution
> URIs [1],

It allows it but not in the way you are suggesting.
cc:attributionName and cc:attributionURL are separate variables. Yes
someone can put a URL into cc:attributionName but most wikipedians
have pseudonyms or names that don't qualify as URLs

>and when you license a work through the CC website, you can
> specify an attribution URI as an alternative to a name.

And you would be allowed to do exactly the same on wikipedia if the
account creator didn't blacklist all URLs. That people can chose an
URL as a pseudonym doesn't help your case at all.


-- 
geni