On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open
the door for offline
reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond
listing
one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear
from discussions which have
taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the
switch.
That is incorrect and an assumption of bad faith. If you read the
actual Q&A the reasons for re-licensing are very clearly and correctly
stated.
I've read your FAQ. I've already read your "declaration of bias" and
your
"ideology". I'm not assuming bad faith. I've concluded it.
My question for anyone opposed to this approach is
this: Do you
acknowledge that there is a problem with GFDL-licensing in terms of
compatibility and ease of re-use, and if so, how do you propose to
solve it?
I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused to
facilitate the application of it.
As far as I am concerned, if there is any moral case
to be
made here, it's a clear and strong moral case for maximizing
information freedom through license compatibility and clear,
consistent usage guidelines.
Sure, you're strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property". Of
course, I can't really figure out why. You say you're not a libertarian,
and you say you're not a socialist. What's your problem with intellectual
property?