Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/18 Michael Snow <wikipe...@verizon.net>: > >> We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical >> that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to >> get some more information that would help work out details for >> attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for >> good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after >> whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a >> large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's >> just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue. >> > I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards, > and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are > interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license > without knowing what that license means. > That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum. But whatever happens in the near term, the evolution of attribution standards will be a continuing activity. We can't know in advance for every case what the license will mean since we may not be able to anticipate each case correctly. That doesn't mean the license has changed, just that the attribution standards need more development.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
