[cc-licenses] 'Attribution' condition human-readable summary misleading
Gregory Maxwell
gmaxwell at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 12:14:39 EDT 2007
On 8/9/07, Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 18:38 -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> > Please (Brianna or anyone) suggest language which is both more accurate
> > and "human readable". Seriously -- it may take awhile to make the
> > change, but we can change the deeds (but not the licenses), and would
> > love to if it makes them more accurate, understandable, etc.
>
> Here's the suggestion I made last year[1] on the subject:
>
> Attribution. You must credit the author or organization by name;
> note the title of the work; and give the URI and/or text of any
> copyright notices. If you change the work, you must note the
> changes.
>
> (The last sentence would be left off for *-ND licenses.)
That appears better... Still there is dissonance with the actual
license. The actual license allows attribution to be replaced through
a service provider's terms of service, for example. If I read the
above text I would be utterly *shocked* to see the alternative credit
as per the license.
Even the existing human readable is better in that situation because
at least it is less shocking to find out that the text is incomplete.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list