[Foundation-l] Attribution by URL reasoning?

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Wed Mar 11 17:09:26 UTC 2009

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I see you've posted a blog post (
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
> > attribution by link was added in 2.5.  You point to this a blog post by
> Mia
> > Garlick (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447) announcing the
> draft
> > changes.  From the content of those changes I gather that you are
> referring
> > to the clause regarding the "terms of service or other reasonable means".
> > Is this correct?
> I was wrong, will note in the post momentarily.  Attribution by link
> was added in 2.0, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216
> The addition in 2.5 was more subtle -- allowing the licensor to say
> that attribution should go to another party -- a journal or wiki were
> the two use cases I remember.
> You can see the changes in 4(c) of
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
> Apologies for confusing,
> Mike

In 1.0 and 2.0 I assume the appropriate section is 4(d).  The change from
1.0 to 2.0 adds a requirement to specify a URL.

Is it your understanding that this was intended to be a requirement in
addition to the requirement to convey the name or pseudonym of the Original
Author, or that it can be done instead of conveying the name or pseudonym of
the Original Author?  The text of 2.0 makes it clear that both are required
by the actual language of the license, even adding the word "and" where it
did not exist in 1.0.  Was that a bug or a feature?

More information about the foundation-l mailing list