David Gerard writes:
We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission. Without us having to do the actual work!
I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY- SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative content be issued under the same free license under which it was distributed.
I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol. To me, that raises a serious problem.
--Mike