Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/18 Michael Snow <[email protected]>: > >> 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. > >
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified in the license, where such contractual stipulations are legal. Not that it is clear how enforceable such stipulations or waivers would be, if reusers asserted a different understanding of the license and/or the IP laws of their specific jurisdiction. Those "terms of use" would IMO be largely theoretical and not legally binding in many jurisdictions, and furthermore they would complicate things greatly, instead of (their claimed effect) simplifying things for reusers. Personally I think trying to shoehorn a gloss on what CC-BY-SA has intentionally left ambiguous, would be a mistake. The really simple thing would be to just leave the license as written, and concentrate perhaps in helping to develop the wording of the license itself, rather than forcing the issue in a site-based form for WMF only. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
