Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Cc <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>]

On 31/10/2013 00:51, Diane Peters wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've updated the html on the staging server to reflect a few changes,
> none of which should be controversial:
>
>   * Updated the definition of Share to specifically reference
>     importation. This is an exclusive right granted authors in many
>     countries.  While we believe it ought already be construed as a
>     permission granted under all six licenses, upon close inspection
>     we've decided to make it unambiguous.
>   * Language improvements (miscellaneous) to the introductory section on
>     Using Creative Commons licenses.
>   * In section 2, we separated and made independent the requirements
>     that you retain a link to the license and retain a disclaimer of
>     warranties, to avoid any argument that the requirements were
>     interdependent.
>
> Updated html:
>
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalcode
>     http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
>
>
> With this, we will be formally closing the public comment period on 4.0
> this Friday, November 1st, subject only to a final hard proof reading
> here at HQ.  We will be sharing our launch plans for 4.0 then.

Super, I think that in order to clarify the attribution bit, you may 
have screwed up the whole thing. As I understand it section 3.2:

      You may satisfy the conditions in (1) above in any
      reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and
      context in which the Licensed Material is Shared.
      For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the
      conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a
      resource that includes the required information.

means that you don't have to display all the information
on the page where the work (image) is displayed but that
a link to the information will suffice. Something like how on
Wikipedia the images link to the copyright information, no
problem there.

The problem arises as the idiots over on wikipedia now seem
to think that they can delete the attribution and original
title, and still be in compliance with the license given
that the stuff will remain in the deletion history.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_147#Wikipedia_image_summaries_are_used_to_advertise_things

They are already cloning out watermarks, now they seem to think
that attribution is satisfied by a chain of links.