et> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: GNU Anubis email postprocessor v3.9.93 X-Image-Url: http://jim.gonzul.org/emailimg/[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Subliminal-Message: Everything I tell you is false
Jim Cheetham wrote: > In a wiki environment, as I see it, there is no way to guarantee to > preserve attribution easily. Changes are logged, but contributors might > be anonymous. So the licenses/by* are probably not appropriate ... and I > can't see anything like an nc-sa one ... Full reading of the legalese version of the 2.0 licenses provides :- > give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You > are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of > the Original Author if supplied With the emphasis on "if supplied", we start to see the light a little bit. That implies that a modification to a wiki page *must not* remove any attributions within it, but does not necessarily have to provide an attribution itself. Even more strictly true with by-sa licensing. I'm not especially happy about that, though, as I didn't to see an "aggregate editing/blog" style of wiki, but a free-for-all edit-what's-already-there style. Preserving attributions seems to force the blog style. I'll have to track down some CC forums and see what other wiki owners think :-) -jim
