On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's > > an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing > > here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating > > your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your > > legal rights.) > > It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually > left to laymen, not lawyers. > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be reasonable." Easy enough when there's a small number of authors who can easily agree on what's reasonable. Harder when you've got thousands of users each with their own opinions of how attribution should be handled. In this situation, who the hell defines "reasonable?" I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license with highly debatable terms. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
