2008/11/7 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
Muwahaha yourself. *cracks knuckles, gets typing*
Q. So what's wrong with the GFDL?
A. The GFDL was written as a licence for software manuals on paper
with one or a few authors. It's not at all suited to wiki content with
possibly hundreds of editors.
Every license tends to fall apart when you start throwing that number
of authors at it
** Even cutting and pasting text between two Wikipedia
technically a violation unless the full author list for that piece of
text is attached. This is not workable on a wiki.
This doesn't change with CC-BY-SA.
Q. Why didn't the FSF just say "OK, the next
GFDL is the same as CC by-sa"?
A. Because, despite Wikimedia sites being by far the largest corpus of
GFDL content, the FSF needed to keep important details of how the
license works the same for its original audience: authors of software
Close. From what I can tell software manuals actually use features in
the GFDL that are not in CC-BY-SA such as cover texts and invariant