QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 3rd January 2011, 10:56am)
Although, under the new CC-BY-SA license, he might be right.
The CC-by-SA that Wikipedia uses states:
QUOTE
You are free:
* to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
* to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
* 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.)
Since Brandon indefinitely blocked the author, she or he didn't have much of a chance to specify the manner of attribution desired.
Actually, this brings up a great point, Anthony... are Wikipedia editors supposed to somewhere specify the manner of attribution that they desire, or is it implied somewhere else in the WikiWacky Free Culture pantheon of lengthy documentation?
Edit: According to the fine print (Section 4c.), it seems the author is already protected by the basic instruction of the license --
QUOTE
If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied...
This post has been edited by thekohser: