Simon Kissane wrote:
Which is why I propose we forget about the precise
legal details of the FDL. Since the FDL is enforced
through means of social pressure rather than legal
proceeding, its spirit is more important than its
letter. So lets just put the precise requirements of
the FDL aside, and just concentrate on what would be
the best solution.
I sort of agree with this! I have to confess that this has been my
attitude from the start. We just say "It is released under the GNU
FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details. The 5
author requirement, etc. are puzzling.
I would actually prefer if we had a way to release under a
Wikipedia-specific license, but I think we need the instant "free"
credibility of the GNU FDL license. It tells people immediately that
they can count on certain things.
And, so I think that as long as we're using the GNU FDL, we need to do
what we can to "get it right" for the more pedantic among us. :-)
--
*************************************************
*
http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************