I should also note that I didn't notice any attribution on the site, as required by CC-SA 2.5. I don't speak the language though, so I can't be sure.

In the right bottom corner there is a CC-wiki logo with link to creativecommons.org

Which fulfills the "Share Alike" portion, but not the "Attribution" portion...

http://code.google.com/p/cnprog/ shows attribution. Maybe the boys at StackOverflow will need to talk to the writer of this new project to firm up details on how and where he shows such attributions.

You think that's adequate? Personally I don't, but it's not an issue I care enough to argue. It was just an observation.

What I have seen so far:

* 4 prominent attributions: SO attributions on his blog, the google code main page, CC license on the new production site, and in the code itself!!!

* apache open source license

Maybe he is not in full compliance yet, but this is one hell of a good start and demonstrates good faith.

I agree that the project is done in good faith and is a completely worthwhile project. See my original comment that started this thread.

I think the proper way of attribution would be a link (or message) in the footer or, at the very least, on the about page. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but if I need to search for the attribution by going to the developers blog or viewing the source code, I don't think that's enough.

This is beside the point, because I agree that the other forms /are/ attribution, but I don't consider the creative commons link a form of attribution at all.