The license does say that new versions of the GFDL can come out in the same
spirit. Now whether we have the ability to do that or whether that is
something we'd have to lobby for with the FSF, I don't know. But I don't
think that the option I've suggested is in any way out of the spirit of the
original license. It does not at all reduce the "freedom" of the content. I
imagine it is the sort of feature that wouldn't have been obvious for people
making software as compared to people making an encyclopedia.
I'm also aware that many people seem to think that one can multi-license in
certain cases. Again, I'm not a legal expert in licenses or copyrights or
anything else but it seems to me that some sort of arrangement could
probably be discovered if some capable people meditated on it for awhile.
FF
On 12/30/05, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/30/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I personally don't think "Sucks,
don't it?" is the right answer here.
Two possible solutions, neither very easy, come to mind:
1. Make database dumps include user data material OPTIONALLY. Most
people
replicating our content have no need and probably
no interest in such
pages,
but they don't have an option when doing a
dump. But filtering by
namespace
would probably require a far more sophisticated
dumping script than we
currently use.
We already do that, see my previous reply, and we already filter by
namespace for that dump.
2. Add a clause to our license somelike the the
ones that certain CC
licenses have, that allow someone to be REMOVED from an author list of a
Read the license we use, this is not a practical option as we can't change
it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l