2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org>: > 2009/1/22 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: >> 2009/1/22 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: >>> So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit "reasonable to >>> the medium or means"? > >> The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable. > > I agree that at least the varied interpretations of 'reasonable' > expressed in this thread indicate a need for a more explicit approach.
There is nothing you can do that will remove that from the crediting clause. Whatever you try to require there will always be a "reasonable to the medium or means" filter between you and the reuser. Trying to engineer around it would be unwise. > Whether such different perceptions are as wide-spread in the broader > author community as they are here is not clear. And unimportant. The license doesn't take into consideration what the authors consider reasonable to the medium or means. > I will begin thinking about how a consultative survey could be > constructed to help inform the process in a timely fashion. I would suggest that first you try and produce a halfway valid justification for the 5 name+url proposal before we waste time putting it out to a survey. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l