[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

Chad innocentkiller at gmail.com
Fri Jan 23 01:03:04 UTC 2009

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> > The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
> > the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
> > is in fact reasonable.
> I know the human-readable summary of the license says that, but when I
> looked I couldn't find anything in the license proper along those
> lines. Quote you quote the relevant section?
Well it does refer to using the URIs as specified by the
licensor 4(c)(iii):

"to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work...."

And it also mentions that the licensor specifies who is to be credited

"...if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or
(e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution
Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other
reasonable means, the name of such party or parties"

I guess I walked away from reading it under the impression that the licensor
and/or original author would be the judge of whether the attribution is
"reasonable." Can't say there's explicit language stating this, it just
to follow and makes common sense, really.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list