On 10/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/06, geni <geniice(a)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).
--
Kirill Lokshin