You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/28 David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>om>:
Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
nothing that needs to be negotiated.
It's a great way to get reuses sued by discruntled wikipedians but has
no useful function.
Reusers have pretty much never followed the GFDL, yet there haven't been
any
lawsuits. At best the recent legal contortions will change nothing, at
worst it will inspire lawsuits where there would have been none.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l