On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A lawyer argues the case according to the requirements of his paymaster. It is exactly for this reason that different lawyers come with different answers to the same question. This means that a legal opinion of one lawyer is very much within reason worth the money that is paid for it and the money available to argue the point.
So, I asked for analysis from *our* lawyer (i.e. Mike) and from lawyers of a couple of institutions which may be considered as fairly independent. (As well as I am open for other suggestions.)
With a blind trust in lawyers, why would you think our community needs to form an opinion about this? In the end it is about power and trust. I trust people like Jimmy, Erik and Mike to do wel for usl. I feel no need to second guess them. My politics is about creating knowledge that is freely available and as such I positively hate all the licenses that restrict me alike.
I said previously a couple of times two very simple statements: - Trusting to someone is one thing, keeping the process transparent is another. - From your list, I already asked for Mike's analysis.
I didn't hear would we stay at CC-BY-SA 3.5/4.0 forever or we would have a possibility to switch to some newer license. If yes, how would we do that?
I didn't hear an explanation what are our options if something goes wrong. Would we have a possibility to switch to another license if we are not content with some future version of CC-BY-SA.
We all agree that the GFDL was not intended for use cases like Wikipedia and we suffer for it. Now let us PLEASE harmonise the CC-by-sa and the GFDL in order to have our practices be more in line with the letter of the license. Thanks,
I agree with you and I would like to see those two licenses harmonized. However, I don't like the fact that I've got all important informations in private talks. This is not only a matter of me (or whoever personally, or whichever group alone), but a matter of all contributors to Wikimedian projects.