On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's > ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've > done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or > degree of attribution, then obviously that takes precedence over > personal preferences. > > You say the license says one thing. Other people say it doesn't. It's > obviously a very grey area (if it was black and white, we wouldn't be > having this debate). My only point was to solicit wider feedback, not > have a poll to overrule legal requirements.
I would like to add that if the specific language of the license is making use overly burdensome and interfering with the free content goals of the license, then that is an excellent point for requesting that CC make modifications in the next version of their license. As it is, thoughtful people already disagree about what "reasonable" implies and what are acceptable ways to "provide" attribution. Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author collaborative works. -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
