On 8/24/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/08/07, Kat Walsh
<kat(a)mindspillage.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com>
>
> > I'm not a lwayer but doesn't the sentence before you agree to the
GFDL
> say
> > that other editors will rip your contributions apart mercilessly?
(or
> words
> > to that effect - "If you don't want your writing to be edited
> mercilessly or
> > redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.") I am quite
sure
that
that is a shorthand definition of GFDL!
That's not intended to be explaining the GFDL! It's a statement of
general editorial philosophy which just so happens to be one allowed
by the license, or rather, that the license was chosen to allow. :-)
-Kat
ok, thats not our (WP) free for all? So editorial philosophy can
actually
overide any editors desire to submit under a
license which gives him
more
rights than what we will do (speedy delete,
PROD)?
I'm not sure how you got any of that out of what I said. (And I'm not
certain that I understand what you mean.)
-Kat
What I meant was before any editor is directed to the actual GFDL license,
they are treated with our "editorial philosophy" - write it and weep! It
isn't GFDL in a nutshell and earlier David said that GFDL can never be in a
nutshell. Either ditch the write it and weep (you may be edited
MERCILICILLY) or pop up the whole GFDL before every post and agree, like you
ndo with every piece of software. or ditch it and license everything to the
foundation, with a clause saying that "it" will not be indemnified
etc...........