--- Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred
to cc-by. The
viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore
furthers our mission.
And...? ;-)
I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being
flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer
restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
(I license my work cc-by.)
I agree. Copyleft can be useful, but the biggest problem with it is that it
tends to prevent you combining with other copyleft work. To quote Lawrence
Lessig: "all of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental
value of every significant advance in the digital age interoperability."
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com