> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary > problem).
Certainly you recognize that this is your opinion only. A group of people can come together and decide that their works should be attributed to them in a flexible manner. I wonder how many actual contributors to Wikipedia want their name on every bit of text they write. Of those that do, I wonder how many would consider flexible attribution, where the author can be easily found but is not explicitly listed, fair attribution to them. I think I know the answer to that question. Also, I'm not so much against a hyperlink as eplicitly listing the authors. But what is the spirit of a Uniform Resource Locator anyway? "It specifies where an identified resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it" (Wikipedia) We can do that without including all the http:// bits. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/3 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: > > Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is? > > Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves > for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work," > > Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically > thinking about printed books. The wording is such that you would have > to include the required credit in a printed form with the book. > > So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So > if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If > the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the > T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit > tricky when someone wears the t-shirt but that is a secondary > problem). > > > I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full > > attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a > > piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content > > should be attributed can easily find that out. We can develop tools to > make > > it easier. > > Not really. Without using admin powers who is the author of the work > "the Wounded Records wikipedia article"? > > > But back to your spirit argument. Why would a CC-Wiki that is more > practical > > about attribution be against the spirit of the GFDL? > > Calling effective removal "practical" doesn't actually change the > situation. > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
