[Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps

John at Darkstar vacuum at jeb.no
Sun Mar 8 14:27:46 UTC 2009

Some options may be out of the question due to local law.

Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>> I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually
>> available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in
>> keeping with the license, so knowing who would accept them isn't
>> particularly useful (although I'm not sure it hurts).
> We tried to surface people's "true preference" for an attribution
> model. (While of course the provided options can't capture everything,
> the relatively low number of write-in options for additional
> attribution models suggests that respondents generally found their
> views represented somewhere in the continuum of given options.)
> People's true preferences should guide our thinking process, and if we
> clouded the available options with perceived or real constraints, we
> wouldn't be able to approximate the best feasible solution. It helps
> us to uncover both where people may be willing to compromise and where
> they may not be.
> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
> accommodate that model after all. As it is, it's the second most
> popular first option, but with 15.29% ranking it as their
> second-to-last option, it's also somewhat polarizing. A link to the
> article, on the other hand, is the first or second option for more
> than 60% of respondents, and the last or second-to-last option for
> only 3.47%.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list