Hoi, The purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects is to make material available and have it used as widely as possible. The fact that we have two licenses is a reasonable compromise because it allows everyone who remained on the GFDL to continue to use our material. The purpose of the change has been to allow the use of our material that is predominantly using only the Creative Commons license. The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting GFDL only material when our reusers might. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/4 Nemo_bis nemowiki@gmail.com
Petr Kadlec, 04/08/2009 10:34:
I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text.
Still, it's quite awful to have to comply to two licenses to reproduce one article (CC-BY-SA for text + GFDL for images): then, you'll have to use GFDL only (if it's possibile with that article) or more likely to get rid of those images (yes, on a DVD you could add GFDL text and so on to use those images too, but that's not so good neither).
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l