On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected] > >wrote: > >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually > >> left to laymen, not lawyers. > >> > > > > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy > > phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what > > form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be > > reasonable." > > It's what a jury deems reasonable, rather than the author(s), isn't it? > > The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable' is in fact reasonable. Of course, this all depends on the court's idea of 'reasonable' too, so we're back to the same issue :) -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
