On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/1/22 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
So why can't a fork be in compliance with the
GFDL? You said that "The
GFDL
1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still
be looking to use CC just
in
a slightly more legal way." What do you
mean by this?
What I mean is that if we consider the proposal to be legal under the
CC license (I don't) then any fork would be better of using
CC-BY-SA-3.0 without utilising the "Attribution Parties" bit of
4(C)(i). This means that it would get the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0
license without the downside that certain people appear to be trying
to add.
I also don't consider the proposal to be legal under the CC license, but I
do think people will probably get away with it anyway. Additionally, I
think whole concept of relicensing people's contributions under a different
license is immoral and legally questionable.
Thus, forking under GFDL 1.2 only has two distinct advantages: 1) it allows
people who consider "the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" to actually
be detriments, to continue to contribute; and 2) it disallows Wikipedia from
incorporating these changes, thus reducing the likelihood that third parties
will come along and use these changes without attribution.
I guess if you think the legal case is cut and dry those 10% could get
together and initiate a class-action lawsuit, or something, but forking is
probably easier and more effective.