What do you mean by legalize? The license is what the license is, while we might influence future versions of the license, we don't really control how current licenses are interpreted. That is an issue for the courts.
There is a modest ambiguity in CC BY-SA 3.0 about the attribution clauses (e.g. "you must ... provide" attribution and license information) that at least allows for an argument that reusers should be personally providing author and license information. In CC BY-SA 4.0, clauses were added to make explicit that linking to a page that includes that information is sufficient (at least in cases where using a hyperlink is "reasonable"). I am unaware of any legal cases that have actually delved into the issue of what is sufficient attribution, which in practice means we don't really know how the attribution requirements will be applied by the courts. In practice, most people are friendly about it and publishers work with content creators (within reason) to satisfy the creator's expectations about attribution. However, this would not be the first case of a publisher getting and paying a monetary demand on the basis of not meeting a content creator's expectations about attribution. Are you suggesting that we stop using older CC licenses (and GFDL, etc.) that don't explicitly say that a hyperlink to the source can be sufficient attribution? If not, what are you actually asking for? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
