> To resume my position : I think CC BY-BC-SA
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/> are a bad license
> for a wiki. The attribution constrain is to hard for such a content,
> especially educational content. USA and UK have legal agreement (such as
> « Fair use ») to not have to worried about it. But France and some other
> countries do not have such an agreement.
> To be perfectly clear, I don't care. The spirit behind that content is
> very clear : « Use it to spread the world about Web standards ». It's
> fine with me... but we all know that the Internet is full of jerk. In
> the current legal state, if a single moron make a change on the wiki
> content under CC, he can lock the content down.
> Now, to answer Karl, I suggest two things here :
> 1. If possible, turn any CC content into a CC0 "Public Domain" content.
> FWIW I think it's the most appropriate license term for such a content.
+1 - particularly for Wiki having an attribution (BY) requirement gets
messy with multiple authors (unless the attribution was to be made to
W3C and the wiki as a whole entity, rather than individual authors that
made the edits/additions).
Though it'd be great to have NC and SA enforced, it's probably easier
for all involved to waive those as well.
> 2. If it's not possible, add some precision about what "attribution"
> means on the W3C wiki. It's the way Wikipedia deal with this concern
> and even if I'm not convince it's enough, at least, it prevent from
> any stupid legal abuse.
> Now to conclude, as I said, this will change nothing to me, but I think
> it's a concern for the W3C. IMHO If this wiki become more and more
> publicly known, this concern will grow fast.
Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]