[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 23:30:30 UTC 2009
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu>:
>> I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example, everyone
>> who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are given,
>> but not the other way around.
> That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that
> giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very
> long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they
> recognize that there is an additional good (ease of re-use) that needs
> to be served. It's true that this is not the case for a large number
> of articles, but it's often the case for the most interesting ones.
> The proposed attribution language - to state names when there are
> fewer than six - is precisely written as a compromise. According to
> your own metrics, for very many articles, this would mean that all
> authors would be named. And the filtering of author names could be
> continually improved to exclude irrelevant names.
> I would say that it's true that the people who have made the case
> against heavy attribution requirements have been typically more
> willing to accept compromise. What compromise are you willing to
> accept? Saying that 'you can opt out' does not address the concerns of
> the other side. Opt-in permanent attribution would be an alternative
> that would probably not have huge impact, and it could be offered only
> on a retroactive basis (e.g. for past edits, but not for future ones).
More information about the foundation-l