[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> I'd say the key to this whole relicensing debate is that the positions
> shouldn't be "balanced".  It is my firm conviction that you ought not
> violate some individuals' rights for the good of some other (larger) group
> of individuals.  Thus, the arguments about how difficult and onerous it is
> to give credit fall on deaf ears.  It doesn't matter how difficult it is to
> credit people.  People have a right to be credited, and printing a URL in a
> book or on a T-shirt or at the end of a movie doesn't cut it.  This is
> especially true because *it's the Wikimedia Foundation's fault* that it's so
> difficult to track authors in the first place.  I personally was arguing for
> more care to be taken in this space and/or an *opt-in* move to a dual
> licensing scheme (and adoption of the real name field) *over 4 years ago*
> (yes Mike, I double-checked this one).  The fact that these concerns were
> ignored for so long *is not the fault of the authors*.  Our rights should
> not be violated or "balanced" away.

Questions:
1) Why doesn't a URL to a comprehensive history list "cut it"? If
anything, I would prefer the URL be used instead of a simple list of
pseudonyms because the URL will contain the revision history and will
display not only who has edited the page, but also the magnitude of
those contributions.  Also, the URL doesn't cut out only 5 of the
authors from the list when a reuser adds a title page (thus removing
all credit from the vast majority of contributors).
2) Printing a small list of pseudonyms of the back of a T-shirt is no
more helpful then the illegible legal disclaimers on TV commercials.
Sure they satisfy the letter of the law but certainly violate it's
spirit. A small comma-separated list tacked on to the end of a printed
version, or scribbled on the bottom of a coffee cup may satisfy the
letter of the attribution clause, but certainly does not satisfy it's
spirit. Is it really better to have a list of authors that may be
illegible, not-searchable and not-sortable? Wouldn't attribution be
better handled by a well-designed web interface? Is it better for
reusers to determine what is the best way to give credit, when we can
give credit in a very positive and well thought-out way and let
reusers simply tap into that?

--Andrew Whitworth