[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Milos Rancic]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net> wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> * If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
>> appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
>> solution to allow pointing from less advanced medium to more advanced
>> medium.
>>
> Independent of the relicensing debate, I don't understand this comment
> at all. Printed works very commonly include URLs to point people to
> material that is online. Some amount of adjustment has been involved as
> people sorted out the issues involved, but at this point it's quite
> routine. So I don't see why we should imagine for ourselves a rule
> against pointing to the web from print. (Or vice versa, for those people
> who think Wikipedia citations have to be to something available online.)

This is not about giving more informations, but about giving the basic
informations about the work related to the legal issues. My amateur
knowledge of law says to me that I am always able to ask for printed
legal document, even electronic one is available and preferable. While
you should better know how the right to get authors list in
appropriate form is connected with my right to demand printed legal
document, I see them very connected and I think that we should act as
they are connected. (Note, again, that this is not about referring to
a document as a literature, but to referring to the authors of the
document, which is far from equal.)