[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Chad]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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
> > legal rights.)
>
> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> left to laymen, not lawyers.
>

Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy
phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what
form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be
reasonable."

Easy enough when there's a small number of authors who can
easily agree on what's reasonable. Harder when you've got
thousands of users each with their own opinions of how attribution
should be handled. In this situation, who the hell defines
"reasonable?"

I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings
about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the
blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license
with highly debatable terms.

-Chad