Alex R. wrote:
It is ironic that these various licenses are incompatible with each other, maybe a simpler solution would be to have a very straightforward license like has been used commonly in areas where non-exclusive licensing is a commercial reality and just make sure that atribution is preserved (sort of like the moral rights approach of European copyright) isn't that what we all really want when we talk about open content?
Absolutely, except that now it is too late for Wikipedia.
If I were doing it all again with benefit of hindsight, I would have setup wikipedia *from the start* to require everyone to contribute under a disjunctive license that said, basically, people can redistribute under the terms of the GNU FDL or any other content license specifically approved by the FSF as free and copyleft.
--Jimbo