On 24/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm
just seeing a lack of actual
> momentum for it, and I'm not sure how to start some myself.
> IMO the sooner the GFDL is deprecated the better. But anyway.
Talking to the FSF is the only realistic option.
RMS's famous intransigence is his most admirable characteristic and
also his most bloody annoying. I keep finding he's right about things
he said five or ten years ago that were considered silly at the time,
so I'm sure his wisdom with refusing to move the GFDL an inch toward
CC-by-sa compatibility is well thought out.
But it's still bloody painful, and painful enough that this dual
licencing effort followed by deprecation of the GFDL might actually be
less painful..
The problem with duel
lisenceing is that you could potentialy end up with situations where
wikipedia would be unable to use modified versions on it's content
because the person chose to use it under CC only and never released
the modification under the GFDL
Yes.
- d.