"horrificly bad question?" Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer <m...@creativecommons.org>: >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer <m...@creativecommons.org>: >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) >>> >>> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the >>> line of reasoning? >> >> The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on. >> >> It was a very simple question (though she's read this thread) and >> answer, didn't go into reasoning. >> > > No it's a horrifically bad question. "whether attribution by URL works > offline as well as on" isn't even a question. A halfway reasonable way > to ask something similar would be along the line of "In a case where > there can be no Attribution Parties would providing credit via URL be > considered reasonable to the medium or means for offline use?" > > And the answer varies between "no", "no one knows" and "it depends". > Heh "it depends" is rather important since I can come up with cases > where it would probably be reasonable to the medium or means to credit > via QR Code but not via a conventional URL. > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
