[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>     
>>> b) a link to an
>>> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
>>> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
>>>       
>> What is the purpose of the wording "and
>> includes a list a list of all authors," ?
>>     
>
> b) in the attribution language is essentially intended to refer to any
> alternative online copy that has all the same key characteristics as
> Wikipedia. Wikipedia includes a list of all authors (through its page
> history), so any alternative online copy that we accept as a link
> target should also do so. I'm not suggesting that they need to list
> the authors in a different format - is the wording unclear here?
>
>   
Clear as mud. :-D

1. If the suggestion is to imply that the simplest way to be
sure to conform with the license is to list all authors, the
phrase is semi-redundant, when connected that way, with
the word "and". To be clear in that case, it should be put:

<quote>
b) a link to an alternative online copy which is freely
accessible in a stable form which conforms with the license.
This is easiest done by including a list of all authors,
</quote>

(I added that "in a stable form" because I think it is useful)
That way it is clear that listing the authors is a means
of conforming with the license in the most easy and
clear form, rather than doing some extra hurdle beyond
that. But then the question comes clear - what is the
point of linking to an alternative online copy, if you
are going to give the full list of authors anyway? What
are the key characteristics in wikipedia beyond the
attribution information, that reside in the online copy,
that you would have the reusers point their readers at?


2. If your intent is to say that an online copy that conforms
with the license would list the authors (as being the simplest
case), I would suggest a clearer phrasing on the lines of:

<quote>
b) a link to an alternative online copy which is freely
accessible in a stable form which conforms with the license.
A conformant copy would give correct attribution to the
authors, which is simplest done by listing all the authors.
</quote>

(By the way, this would be my much preferred legalese
form of expressing what is right, purely personally.)


3. If the intent is to maintain a stipulation that conforming
to the license can be done by satisfying a significantly
lower threshold than supplying the authors, but since we
are doing that "more onerous route", every other sad site
should do the same; well I simply disagree, and that
phrasing merely reads petulant and doesn't even get the
point across.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen