[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Erik Moeller]

2009/1/21 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
> So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your
> approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c)
>
> "You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
> provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"
>
> That is an and command not an or. You have to meet everything from
> 4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iv)

Yes, and it's quite obvious that if no author name but a URL is
supplied, then under 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii), a re-user would have to
attribute only that URL. After all, the license clearly limits name
attribution under 4(c)(i) with the clause "if supplied". The
'reasonable' restriction in 4(c)(iii) is not particularly relevant to
our intended use. Furthermore, the license has to be understood in the
broader context of the terms of use under which people contribute; it
allows for such terms exactly to define and clarify its attribution
language.

That's why the 'human readable' version of the license explicitly says
that attribution must happen in the manner specified by the author or
licensor, and even the CC website allows you to license a work with
the only credit being a URL. This URL option is explained in the
licensing help as 'The URL users of the work should link to. For
example, the work's page on the author's site'. This is completely
consistent with linking to an article or history page on Wikipedia.

Your repeated assertion that attribution-by-URL is somehow
inconsistent with CC-BY-SA is therefore obviously untrue.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate