[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> > cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >>
> >>> As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
> >>> highly medium specific.
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >> However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct
> >> (never mind if it has been previously covered in these
> >> threads or not), that would be quite significant, in
> >> particular in those jurisdictions where moral rights
> >> are defined in law.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think there's much dispute that attribution is highly medium
> > specific.
> I don't think anybody can dispute you just quoted me highly
> out of context.
>

If so, I must not have understood your original comment, and I apologize.

> A URL printed in a textbook is clearly much different from a URL
> > encoded into a web page.  The only question is whether the specifics
> should
> > focus on the rights of the author, or on maximizing ease of
> redistribution.
> >
>
> No, that is precisely a false dilemma. there are a whole range
> of issues to consider, and those aren't even the necessarily
> most cogent ones. In some circumstances maximizing ease of
> redistribution and the rights of the author go hand in hand.
>
> And in some corner cases, idiots (and I am not meaning you
> but specifically some of your less clueful opponents) will argue
> that sacrificing the authors pride of doing good in a copyleft
> context is a necessary price to pay to make it easier to
> redistribute. This is false, and I am willing to argue against
> this statement when posited at any forum in any fashion, if
> I am given my right to express my arguments.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>