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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l