On 1/16/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know what license they've picked. But you appear to be
phrasing the above so as to imply that us disgusting people so much
they don't even want to bother with Wikipedia is not in fact a
problem, if they picked a non-commercial license anyway, so we can
just ignore having had that effect on people. Huh?
That's not what I was trying to imply, and sorry if it came off that way.
I put it in parentheses as an apparently unsuccessful attempt to make clear
it was somewhat of a side-comment from the other issues, and in fact as a
comment it lends more to your line of argumentation than a contrary one.
That is: if people fork, they'll probably pick non-commercial licenses,
because most people are more worried about being "commercially exploited"
than they are about creating "truly free" material. Which, IF true, means
that most forks would be totally incompatible with Wikipedia even if we did
change the more glaring difficulties with the GFDL.
Adding one more point to this: CC licenses (even in their long, "legal"
form, but obviously their "short" forms too) are also much easier to make
sense of than the GFDL, and were created with much attention to the types of
interests someone making content on a Wiki might have, in my opinion.
(Personally, I don't think the GFDL has much of a future in comparison with
the CC licenses, but of course there were no CC licenses around when
Wikipedia was created. Sigh...)
FF