On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 15:59, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Not really. In the current notice the footnote
stuff isn't technically
required. It's mostly there to provide something to point to if people
start trying to use the more annoying features of the GFDL. To the
average editor who wouldn't think of doing that it doesn't really
matter.
True, but my larger point wasn't about the footnote's contents - it was that
the current notice is as short as it is because it links elsewhere for the
actual license details. (Similarly, the current notice links elsewhere to
define "copyright" and "verifiable".) By extension, we can keep the
revised
notice relatively brief by using links to refer elsewhere for license text
and/or discussion.
--
Jim Redmond
jim(a)scrubnugget.com
I hope so but isn't something that needs to be done before implementation.
--
geni