On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would
probably be the most
appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
content, new
Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA-
only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind
Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content"
- CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you
really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every
opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad
hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense?
Thanks. By "new Wikipedia content" I meant content first contributed to
Wikipedia.
To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now. 1) I never said
I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would
likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the
WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable. *IF*
more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes
ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I
think a fork would be viable.