On 10/17/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the stuff we produce.
How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)? Anybody who wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.
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...? ;-)
No, really, I don't see how the length of the copyright terms is an issue if everything is being licensed under the GFDL anyways (except in the sense that longer copyright terms mean more time until somebody can start getting usable Wikipedia dumps with no GFDL strings attached, which presumably isn't something too desireable in any case).