handling attributions for Docs

[Christopher Curran]

Eric Christensen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:26:09AM +1000, Christopher Curran wrote:
>  > Karsten Wade wrote:
>  > >Now we have a clear need for attributing source information: thanks to
>  > >being relicensed under CC BY SA 3.0 means we can import lots of good
>  > >content and so we're likely to do so.  Efficient attribution is now
>  > >important.
>  > >
>  > >There are two parts to this discussion:
>  > >
>  > >* Technical - how it works in DocBook and Publican
>  > >* Brand - how does the Fedora Documentation Project want to attribute
>  > >
>  > >I was going to look at it from a social angle, but I think the brand
>  > >angle overrides the social angle.  Read on for more.
>  > >
>  > >== Technical proposal ==
>  > >
>  > >To handle copyright attribution, I recommend we adopt this approach:
>  > >
>  > >* For single or a few imports of a chunk of attributable content, use
>  > >  a <footnote>.  Attribution happens on the page it occurs.
>  > >
>  > >  Example: Pulling a description of AES encryption from Wikipedia for
>  > >  the Fedora Security Guide.
>  > >
>  > Footnotes come from one school of attribution. There is another
>  > school of thought that preaches endnotes. I would recommend neither
>  > and suggest we go with a page of attribution and thanks were we
>  > mention various voluntary and 'acquired' contributions. This gives
>  > us a wider scope for referencing conversations, technical input,
>  > code, and other miscellaneous contribution. Useful as we will be
>  > without a formal and ridged format which would normally exclude
>  > those types of contributions.
>
> While it is great to say "we used all these references and people to
> make this guide" I don't think that meets the 1) letter of the license
> or 2) the spirit of sharing.  If the text we use comes from someone else
> who says to use it but attribute it back we should do that.  We would
> need some way to point from the text to the attribution so it is proper.
>
>   
I wasn't referring to just a list of names. I meant name, affiliation 
(if requested/required), and a short description about the nature of the 
contribution.

Of course, follow the letter of the license.
"Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by 
the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they 
endorse you or your use of the work)."
That is pretty broad though. I'm not sure how a list of names and 
descriptions would invalidate that. Again, IANAL.

>  > >For the <legalnotice> usage, we would need:
>  > >
>  > >* A standard format for all attributions, to make it fair, clear,
>  > >  equitable.  Alphabetical, for example.
>  > Always by importance. Alphabetical is rubbish for translations and
>  > other languages.
>
> How do you determine importance?
>   
With great difficulty. As subjective as that is it is probably more 
useful than English alphabetical order.

Order of appearance would also be a possibility.

>  > In all writing projects there is always one to three actual
>  > writers. Primary writers should be up the front and secondary,
>  > tertiary and other contributors up the back/front in a
>  > references/attribution section.
>
> Maybe but there are times that distinction is always clear.
>   
Sure. Isn't that the problem this entire thread is trying to solve?
>
>  > 
>  > I think we want to create a competitive space. We want to work as a
>  > team but really bring credit to our standout players. We want to
>  > put them out there and say, "This person is really great". That may
>  > change from version to version and that is a Good Thing.
>
> I think the end result is having a product that is up to date and
> helpful.  People come to our guides because they have questions.  We
> should want to help answer those questions.  If you are in it just to
> have your name in lights go get yourself a blog.
>   
>  
I'm probably not being as clear as I could be. I am arguing to keep 
attribution prominent. The rest is waffle and small-point discussion.

My views are my own and I'm not representing anyone else. I may seem 
hostile or argumentative, but that is just how I think and I'm not 
really like that :)

Chris