[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Brian]

"horrificly bad question?"

Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>:
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>:
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
>>>
>>> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
>>> line of reasoning?
>>
>> The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on.
>>
>> It was a very simple question (though she's read this thread) and
>> answer, didn't go into reasoning.
>>
>
> No it's a horrifically bad question. "whether attribution by URL works
> offline as well as on" isn't even a question. A halfway reasonable way
> to ask something similar would be along the line of "In a case where
> there can be no Attribution Parties would providing credit via URL be
> considered reasonable to the medium or means for offline use?"
>
> And the answer varies between "no", "no one knows" and "it depends".
> Heh "it depends" is rather important since I can come up with cases
> where it would probably be reasonable to the medium or means to credit
> via QR Code but not via a conventional URL.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>