On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard writes:
We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission. Without us having to do the actual work!
I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY- SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative content be issued under the same free license under which it was distributed.
I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol. To me, that raises a serious problem.
You seem to be forgetting about Wikinews.
But why can't CC-BY content be reproduced in WMF projects? And how could Knol fix that? Even if Knol allowed licensing under the GFDL, it still probably couldn't be reproduced in WMF projects, because WMF projects don't support adding authors to the title page (among other GFDL requirements). Is any GFDL content currently reproduced in WMF projects without special permission from the copyright holder?