[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:28:20 UTC 2009
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
>>> of what is acceptable under the license.
>> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
>> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
>> if taken in the absolute.
>> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
>> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
>> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
>> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
>> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
>> as it can go".
> I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has
> certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would
> satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide
> which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to
> decide that things not on that list are acceptable.
The source of your confusion is simple. You think I disagree
with you, when I (plainly worded and quoted by you) find
"nothing I disagree logically with in your statement".
I simply do not disagree with you. Period.
But you do introduce a very specific staement in your
confusion that can help to progress further gains in
You say specifically that "Community opinion should be
used to decide which items on that list we consider
acceptable, it can't be used to decide that things not
on that list are acceptable."
I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
they were infact contrary to our mission.
More information about the foundation-l