2009/1/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
Since the GFDL doesn't actually require that you credit the author at all in many cases technically true but not actually helpful towards your position.
Why wait under after the switch? Why not start by complying with the GFDL, before you even begin discussing changing it to some other license.
Wikipedia for the most part complies with the GFDL as has been explained to you many many times. That you are unable to grasp this is not ultimately our problem mind.
It should be on the title page, i.e., next to the title.
Look where the history tab is.
I don't see the WMF reducing or removing attribution any more than they have already been doing (but maybe I'm wrong, what has happened so far has already surprised me - I never thought the FSF would go along with this plan, in fact it had been promised that they couldn't). What I see the WMF doing is: 1) changing the license to fit their practices, rather than changing their practices to fit the license; and 2) encouraging others to distribute the content without attributing the vast majority of the authors.
CC-BY-SA actually has stronger author crediting command than the GFDL so your conspiracy theories are again flawed.