Hoi,
Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also
my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can
be legally used by our downstream users of our content.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
Meijssen<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
Commons accepts materials that are free according to
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that
works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst
feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's
no reason to stop doing it.
Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l