For the copyright geeks, I would like to point out that in addition to the new section 11 there were also substantial changes to section 9 (the termination clauses) in this new version. Other minor changes includes a "proxy" clause in section 10 and a new definition for "publisher" in section 1.
-Robert Rohde
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l