[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[geni]

2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> 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.

Irrelevant. Most wikipedians do not have usernames that are valid URLs

>After all, the license clearly limits name
> attribution under 4(c)(i) with the clause "if supplied".

It is supplied unless you are going to allow truly anonymous editing
on wikipedia.

> The
> 'reasonable' restriction in 4(c)(iii) is not particularly relevant to
> our intended use.

False. Your intended use is to use URL to provide credit. With that
being the case "reasonably practicable"

>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.

Only in certain ways and not the ones you propose.

> 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 we all know that the license text provides no such guarantee
otherwise we hit the problem of the manner specified by the author or
licensor being skywriting.

>and even the CC website allows you to license a work with
> the only credit being a URL.

And it has already been explained to you why this is irrelevant to
your proposal. Again most wikipedians do not have names or nics that
are valid URLs.

>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.

Nope. Ever tried using that option? It kicks out "This work by
www.example.com is licensed under a....." This is consistent with the
license treating the URL as the author's pseudonym which can be done.
Just not in the way that you are suggesting or in a way that is of any
real use to wikipedia.

> Your repeated assertion that attribution-by-URL is somehow
> inconsistent with CC-BY-SA is therefore obviously untrue.

None of the cases you suggest are attribution-by-URL but instead
attribution to a pseudonym that happens to be a URL. There is an
important difference.

Wikipedia can't make use of the
attribution-to-a-pseudonym-that-happens-to-be-a-URL aproach because,
for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&action=history
is not the pseudonym of any author of our canal article nor can it
reasonably be considered an Attribution Party.

-- 
geni