[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Michael Snow]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> 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.)
>   
I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're trying to say, then. It 
sounded like you were talking about having one document (web, print, 
whatever medium) point to another, something that might be done for 
attribution or a variety of other purposes. And if it's a question of 
pointing, I'm puzzled what difference it makes which medium is used or 
which direction one points across different media.

I'm also not sure what you mean by a right to demand a printed legal 
document. It sounds sort of like you're referring to this as a right you 
hold as an author (whether as part of basic copyright or a moral right). 
That's not something I'm familiar with at all. So it's likely that I've 
not understood what you mean correctly there, either.

--Michael Snow