[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
geniice at gmail.com
Mon Mar 16 01:57:21 UTC 2009
2009/3/16 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> You have failed to establish how that makes any difference - it
> doesn't. The reason for it being there makes no difference as to
> whether people know what a URL is when they see it in print.
Interesting claim I'm not aware of any testing.
If we limit ourselves to industrialized nations we can probably assume
that most people will pick up what www.example.com is. Probably pick
up example.com but how many would pick up "nucleoprote.in"
([[nucleoprotein]] is a valid article). Of course you could try and
argue that technically the approach Erik keeps pushing wouldn't allow
for that (the lack of resource type means it is questionable if that
is a legit URL) but the need to understand formal technical
definitions is just another reason why messing with CC-BY-SA's
"reasonable to the medium or means" is a really bad idea.
More information about the foundation-l