Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <mgod...@wikimedia.org>: > >> Chad writes: >> >>> I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings >>> about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the >>> blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license >>> with highly debatable terms. >>> >> Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has >> its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, >> I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness >> or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen >> one. >> > It it did exist, it would be several volumes long. > Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
