On 1/9/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006, at 00:44, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Is there a license that isn't compatible with the stuff on commons?
Well 2 ways they could go:
Not use commons as they are not interested
Not produce media that we could use on commons (proprietary).
I cant see any license reason why they cant use whats one commons, its pretty free.
Justinc
Yeah, I hope they keep the vast majority of their content non-proprietary (I'd say all of it, but I've kind of given up on that one). Otherwise there's not much of a point. There's plenty of no-cost proprietary information already out there. I guess most of it isn't ad-free, but I don't see that as *that* big of a draw.
Using the GFDLed stuff is more problematic. Using it was, in hindsight, probably the biggest mistake made by Wikipedia. It might be worth starting over from scratch just to get rid of the ties to the GFDL. Of course one can always hope that the FSF is finally going to fix that license, but we've been asking for years and it hasn't happened yet.
Anthony