geniice at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 21:55:47 UTC 2009
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> 2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/1/22 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to
>>> the medium or means"?
>> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
> I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable'
> expressed in this thread indicate a need for a more explicit approach.
There is nothing you can do that will remove that from the crediting
clause. Whatever you try to require there will always be a "reasonable
to the medium or means" filter between you and the reuser. Trying to
engineer around it would be unwise.
> Whether such different perceptions are as wide-spread in the broader
> author community as they are here is not clear.
And unimportant. The license doesn't take into consideration what the
authors consider reasonable to the medium or means.
> I will begin thinking about how a consultative survey could be
> constructed to help inform the process in a timely fashion.
I would suggest that first you try and produce a halfway valid
justification for the 5 name+url proposal before we waste time putting
it out to a survey.
More information about the foundation-l