Andrew Whitworth ha scritto:
I only used "pain in the ass" here because you had said it yourself in
the message I replied to (although you more politely used the PITA
acronym). I certainly am not implying that you are being a PITA here.
My point with the question was that the specific case of CC-BY-SA is a
very nice analog for the GFDL in many respects. The Share-alike (SA)
requirement of the license ensures that it is perpetually viral like
the GFDL is, and the By-attribution (BY) aspect ensures that authors
receive proper credit for their work. From a philosophical standpoint,
this is almost identical to the GFDL. The benefit to using CC-BY-SA
over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied
by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for
short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to
the CC-BY-SA, why commons prefers that license for it's images, and
why many wikibookians are interested in per-book cross-licensing
arrangements with this license.
To be precise, Wikinews is licensed as cc-by, not cc-by-sa. I think the
share-alike clause was dropped so that the articles could be reused nore
freely, allowing someone else to copyright derivative works but above
all using them everywhere, without the need of licensing something else
with the same license. I don't know which license is freer, it's mostly
a matter on how you look at it. It is very unfortunate that licenses
that are so similar like GFDL and cc-by-sa are mutually incompatible.
Cruccone