2009/1/21 geni <[email protected]>: > So you are claiming that it is section 4(c)(iii) that makes your > approach valid. First problem comes with the opening to section 4(c) > > "You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and > provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:" > > That is an and command not an or. You have to meet everything from > 4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iv)
Yes, and it's quite obvious that if no author name but a URL is supplied, then under 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii), a re-user would have to attribute only that URL. After all, the license clearly limits name attribution under 4(c)(i) with the clause "if supplied". The 'reasonable' restriction in 4(c)(iii) is not particularly relevant to our intended use. Furthermore, the license has to be understood in the broader context of the terms of use under which people contribute; it allows for such terms exactly to define and clarify its attribution language. That's why the 'human readable' version of the license explicitly says that attribution must happen in the manner specified by the author or licensor, and even the CC website allows you to license a work with the only credit being a URL. This URL option is explained in the licensing help as 'The URL users of the work should link to. For example, the work's page on the author's site'. This is completely consistent with linking to an article or history page on Wikipedia. Your repeated assertion that attribution-by-URL is somehow inconsistent with CC-BY-SA is therefore obviously untrue. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
