We are discussing all kinds of "arguments" around the license change from
GFDL to CC-by-sa. I am not impressed at all by the quality of the arguments.
It seems to me that there are two trains of thought. There are the people
who want THEIR attribution and who will come up with every conceivable and
inconceivable argument to get as much personal exposure as possible. On the
other hand there are the people who do not care that much about their
attribution, they care more for interoperability, they want to have the best
license that will ENABLE cooperation and collaboration.
So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this. I
have only heard a lot of FUD that I qualify as narcistic. FUD that does not
contribute to more FREE colloaboration and re-use. I can understand why the
shared alike part is deemed to be important. I can understand why commercial
organisations are not free to just use material in any context. But that is
all beside the point because it applies equally to either license.
The one argument against the CC-by-sa that takes the prize is the notion
that we will have less influence with Creative Commons ... yet another great
When you ask why narcissism should not have a place, it is quite simple; the
world does not resolve around you (or me for that matter).
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu>
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The
restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
foundation-l mailing list