[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view

[Erik Moeller]

2009/3/23 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>:
> But none of this was exactly the concern I raised.  My concern was that the TOS proposed for WMF site would restrict authors to using to certain facet of the CC-by-SA license that is not commonly used.  This would generally prevent anyone who was not an author from importing externally published CC-by-SA material which likely relies on a more common facet of the license (naming the author by name).  This is because such non-authors would have no right to agree to the more restrictive WMF TOS on behalf of authors who simply released their work as CC-by-SA.

This is explicitly addressed - the proposed terms do make allowance
for content attaching additional attribution requirements; see the
section "Attribution of externally attributed content" in:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update

What is and isn't acceptable in terms of additional attribution for
external content, and how such attribution should be displayed, is IMO
something we need to work out as a community. We don't need to solve
every problem in this process; fundamentally what we're trying to do
is create a consistent baseline that's understandable and easy to
build on.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate