[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
mgodwin at wikimedia.org
Thu Jan 22 21:21:55 UTC 2009
> On the other hand, the history page *could* be interpreted as being
> part of
> the Document.
Even if it's on a different server?
> For online copies, as I've said before, I don't see much problem
> with this.
> As I've said before, it's hard to draw the line as to what is part
> of the
> work and what is not part of the work, when it comes to online
> sources. But
> I don't think the same argument can be made for offline copies.
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> My main concern is that CC-BY-SA will be deliberately misinterpreted
> to not
> require direct attribution - and the published draft of the RfC
> that this concern is valid.
So you think an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when
the article is online is "direct"? But an online attribution on a
separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not*
"direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this distinction?
More information about the foundation-l