Attribution + copyleft = access to knowledge (a2k) Atribution + copyright = still violation of the law
Attribution and copyright violations are not necessarily linked. We are confusing issues here. The two do not necessarily go together. Arguing that you have adquately attributed a source will not always absolve you of the charge of "copyright violation". Attribution is a form of showing courtesy. (We cannot attribute the source of all the ideas we come by, in any case. Do the promoters of copyright attribute any of their arguments to their source? They have consistently ignored this question.) I think Basilio's argument is very different from what you guys are saying. Jose and Bosco aren't in full agreement with you either.Cecil is taking on the major job of targeting Gilbert Lawrence (he hasn't yet explained his views on 'piracy', 'copyright' or whether he would download illegally copied CDs, as I occasionally do ... or circulate for a not-for-profit purpose a copyrighted and published-earlier article from another newspaper or publcation as I am doing all the time and thus violating somebody's copyright, even if doing it in a way where they might not exactly mind). George is making a parallel point, but with an ambivalent dose of humour. I wonder what he thinks of copyright-unencumbered ways oa creating and sharing knowledge. AFAIK, only Sunith Velho is echoing your point of view, which looks at an academia-above-all perspective. --FN
I don't know how it underlines Frederick's point. I think it underlines the opposite point - that of Basilio, Jose, Bosco, Cecil, Sunith, George and me - that proper acknowledgment does not preclude free sharing of creative content. That simple attribution can be completely dissociated from copyright and copyright law. Santosh
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
