--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote: What we really need is a GNU FDL 2.0 with a clause stating something to the effect of "Any documents licensed under the GNU FDL 2.0 or any later version with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts can also be licensed under the GNU Free Content License." The GNU Free Content License would in turn be made to be compatible with a future version of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike License and would have no provision for the evil Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts (although those could still be added by transferring FCL content back to the FDL, but once that is done, that version would be locked into the FDL). If we had a hand in drafting the GNU FCL, then we could ensure that it could be friendly to all content and more lax in what needs to be done in order to comply (requiring pretty much what we require for compliance - which happens to be a *very* liberal interpretation of the GNU FDL in order to make is practical for people to copy us). The GNU FDL is a complicated mess. The sooner we can be free of it, the better. IMO. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

--- Peter Jaros <rjaros(a)ShaysNet.com> wrote: We are stuck with it until/if the FSF writes an out clause in the yet-to-be-written (or even planned) 2.0 version. Since we state that we use the GNU FDL 1.2 or "any later version", it is very possible to change *if* the FSF allows it. Drafting our own license would not be ideal, but we should have a hand in drafting a GNU FCL. RMS threatened to start GNUpedia if Nupedia didn't change to the GNU FDL (and Wikipedia inherited Nupedia's license decision). The least he and the FSF can do is help us migrate to a better license since the FDL has proved to be controversial, overly complicated, and require too much of downstream users (what we require of downstream users - a direct linkback and mention of and link to the GNU FDL is a *very* loose interpretation of what the license really requires). The FDL was created to serve the needs of free software documentation, and, by admission of the FSF, is not free in the same sense free software is free (esp when invariant texts are used). -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Several people have noticed and he has had his ban extended (not by the arbitrators but by a sysop who banned him anew). His case is still in arbitration. You are welcome to this information to the evidence page and to request relief on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2]]. Fred From: Rick &lt;giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com&gt; Reply-To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's vandalism and threats Why is that nobody has even bothered to note that Wik has consistanly violated his 7-day block and not only that, but is going wild in vandalizing other people's User and Talk pages? What is it about Wik that you people let him get away with so much? Does he have blackmail information on you people? Why is everybody bending over backwards to help him get away with so much? If it were me, especially, or any other user who behaved as Wik does, we would have been banned and not allowed to post again, let alone violate the requirements of his ban and violate the requirement that nobody be allowed to vandalize other people's User and Talk pages? Why is that I am the only person who seems to be interested in protecting Quagga, who, for some unknown reason, has become the target of Wik's wrath (well, I am too, and I was at first. Then when I decided the hell with it and let him have his way, Dori protected Wik's Talk page and Wik didn't go afte r HIM.) There is no reason for Wik's attacks on Quagga. And now that Quagga has, justifiably, returned the affection, Wik has posted this on Jimmy Wales's Talk page: "All right, after my last comment Quagga has done it again. I'm seriously throwing down the gauntlet now: either you effectively protect my userspace (which clearly now necessarily entails banning Quagga) or this site will not come to rest. I have an endless supply of proxies (and ISPs if necessary). You know that I have never used such things in article disputes. But this now is a matter of personal honour, and I will never relent on this in the slightest. It is one thing that, after spending ten months doing more useful edits than anyone else, I was effectively banned in a grotesque arbitration ruling, but that I should now, adding insult to injury, have to accept my own user space being vandalized with impunity, is a monstrous injustice that I simply WILL NOT ACCEPT. Wik " So, is anybody going to do anything about it, or are you just going to let him have his way? Or are you going to block Quagga because Wik says so? More useful edits than anyone else? My, Wik has a high opinion of himself, doesn't he? But then, it's the way all of you make him feel, isn't it? RickK Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger <http://messenger.yahoo.com/> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The dispute resolution process is only nonsense if you don't use it effectively. The way to use it effectively is to read it and follow the steps. Trying to resolve disputes outside the dispute resolution process can potentially put you right into it, as a defendent. Wik was protected or let us say he was supported by a few friends. That support is wasted as he continues to struggle in one way or another to have it "his way". At this point he has very little support for continued aggressive cowboying, nor will you. Fred From: Rick &lt;giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com&gt; Reply-To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik's vandalism and threats What good would that do? He's obviously protected, and besides, the arbitration process is nonsense. RickK Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)ctelco.net&gt; wrote: Several people have noticed and he has had his ban extended (not by the arbitrators but by a sysop who banned him anew). His case is still in arbitration. You are welcome to this information to the evidence page and to request relief on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2]]. Fred __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

His editing was restricted and has been even more restricted by Wik2 and now he has been banned for 7 days (I voted for 3 months). You might feel insulted but absolutely no action was taken against you. Fred From: Rick &lt;giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com&gt; Reply-To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:38 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik's vandalism and threats I went through the process in my first attempt at arbitration with Wik, and he got a slap on the wrist and was allowed to continue with his vandalism and antithetical behavior, and *I* was slapped down for doing the right thing. And gee, guess what, here you are doing the same thing. RickK

Jimmy Wales (jwales(a)bomis.com) [040527 23:06]: That's excellent news! Having the FSF lawyers around, particularly Lessig (we have all read 'Free Culture', yes? [1]), will make sure the result is sensible. - d. [1] http://www.free-culture.com/ - full text in several formats.

--- Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt; wrote: Each of them agreed to license their work either under the GNU FDL 1.1 "or any later version" or the GNU FDL 1.2 "or any later version." If the GNU FDL 2.0 allows transfer to another free content license (such as the FCL I proposed), then that is fine. Free content is supposed to be freely used - it is absurd that it cannot be transfered from one free content license to another. Those licenses that are very similar, such as the CC by-sa and the GNU FDL (when no invariant sections are used) should be made compatible with each other. The Free Content License would act as a simplified FDL and compatibility layer (the FSF has already stated that invariant sections are going to stay part of the FDL, so that is a non-starter). Our only out is a change in the license and the only people who can do that are in the Free Software Foundation. -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 20:12, Stan Shebs wrote: For any given point of time, once there will be more material written after that point then before it. If everyone agrees that, in principle, it would be good if Wikipedia would be dual-licenced, change the licence now and eventually most of Wikipedia will be dual-licenced. If a lot of contributors agree to accept new licence for their former work, it would be even better, but even if they don't it doesn't matter.