On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Wikipedia" would only satisfy the license if the author specifically > said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to > designate "Wikipedia" or anything else to receive the attribution. I > would expect the attribution requirements to be made perfectly clear > before we vote, if they're not, I would almost certainly vote against > the proposal.
I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on whether to support the vote. However the absence of any guidance about what is appropriate attribution strikes me as a strong reason to be critical. If attribution rules are going to change, I think it is important to be as unambiguous as possible about what they are changing to, and encourage a uniform interpretation rather than leaving it for every user to ponder what the license expects of them. -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
