[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
wikimail at inbox.org
Fri Jan 23 03:50:16 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy
> > phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what
> > form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be
> > reasonable."
> It's what a jury deems reasonable, rather than the author(s), isn't it?
Isn't it what a jury deems the grantee of the license to have intended?
"You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), [...]
provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name
of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if
the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties
(e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution
("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or
by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties."
Now, personally, the way I read "reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilitzing", I think it means "what is reasonably necessary to provide
proper attribution", not "what is reasonably necessary to maximize reuse".
Erik seems to be pushing for the latter interpretation.
On the other hand, I think it's a terrible idea to use such an ambiguous
license in the first place.
More information about the foundation-l