[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> I might add that the argument that "you ought not violate some individuals'
> rights for the good of some other (larger) group of individuals" is weak in
> this context, and that exactly the same can be (and has been) said in
> reverse:
>
> "Requiring even 2 pages of attributions be included after every article
> inclusion is a non-free tax on content reuse, and a violation of our
> author's expectations."
>

Even if that were true (and it isn't), that still wouldn't justify the
violation of the rights of those authors who want and expected to be
credited.  If your statement were true (and it isn't), it would mean that
the only right thing to do is to not use the work at all.

To borrow a line from the GPL, "If you cannot convey a covered work so as to
satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all."