[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

Tue Feb 3 21:55:22 UTC 2009

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at 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