On 11/05/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is mistaken to think that an encyclopaedia that did not go for GFDL could not survive... Look at the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. To the content producers the big thing with wikipedia is that we are open access, not that we are GFDL. Well guess what, Stanford is open access but completely copyright, not left.
This is one reason I want to talk up free content as an important part of what we are.
Has anyone approached Scholarpedia about free content licensing, by the way? They wouldn't need to change a single thing about the Scholarpedia model - just require new works to be free content.
Erik would be the person for this, but he may be just a touch busy ... is there anyone who routinely works on this sort of thing? It's of almost-direct interest to WMF's interests to make free content *normal*.
- d.