On 21 Aug 2007 at 14:44:29 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's very easy for us to say that they broke the rules. What were they supposed to do?
They should have done something. Actual compliance is rather complicated, but it's not difficult to at least be honourable and admit that it's not your text.
So, basically, we want people reusing our content to show some sign that they are attempting in good faith to comply with the license, even if they don't quite dot the i's and cross the t's in a manner that can't be nitpicked to death by a lawyer. Perhaps we should have, somewhere prominently linked from our copyright license page, some plain-English non-lawyerese explanation of the bare minimum that would be needed by a reuser to show such good faith and not be ridiculed by us (even if we're not generally inclined to sue).