Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

On 4/26/07, Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com> wrote:

Greg London wrote:
> On 4/26/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com > wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 April 2007 01:47 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
>> > The burden of research is the main objection to By-type licensing,
>> IMHO,
>> > along with the burden of advertising terms (like the old BSD).
>> Is there anyone on the list who sees this in a different light?
>
> Terry raises the main issue with attribution: accumulating overhead.
>
> This was one of the reasons that Attribution was changed
> so that contributers could have attribution be made under
> a single website or project name, rather than individual
> contributers. More contributers did not accumulate more
> attribution requirements.

Whoa, I missed that. So if I have, say, a SourceForge game project and I
have a zillion contributors, can I just require that attribution point
at the project page (where, of course, there will be a full credits list?)

 

 

The "wiki" license (which is a brand for CC-SA-BY) says:

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

 

4.c: You must ...  keep intact all copyright notices for the Work ...

and provide ... reasonable to the medium ... the name of the

Original Author ... or if the Original Author ... designate another party ...

for attribution ...  the name of such party

 

So, copyright notices, as usual, must remain in place.

However, the bit that says you must attribute authors

in a way reasonable to the medium (bubble up),

that part says you can attribute the name of the

authors, or the name of whomever they designate

for attribution.

 

Which means if a wiki wants to keep attribution overhead 

to a minimum, it can have contributers agree to designate

the website for attribution.

 

That's the idea, anyway.

 

Greg