[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 10:27:22 UTC 2009

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're talking
> about what forms of attribution are acceptable for people using our
> content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that attribution by URL is
> acceptable for people using the content under CC-BY-SA.

Well, yes, but the URL would have to be to the history of
the article. Currently the wording suggests otherwise;
which is just too bad.

The attribution information won't be found if the URL
points to a wikipedia article, rather than its history.
Thus pointing the URL at the article would be no
attribution at all.

And similarly if a reuser is pointing to an article that
is only pointing to the history by url, rather than being
the history itself inline with the article, that of course
won't be attribution at all.

However the text currently says it is okay to link to
a wikipedia article, even though the article itself
does not contain the attribution.

At least that is how I read it. And yes, I *do* think
that is inconsistent.

And for that matter, we can say anything we like, but
it won't change the license itself.


Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

More information about the foundation-l mailing list