Right... we tell the people that our encyclopedia is free -- for use, and
for distribution. When they're interested in distribution -- that's when
they're basically asking for legal terminology.
On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
James Hare wrote:
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to
inundate common people with
complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied
finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his
eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to
live
like common people; he wanted to live and drink
with common people. So he
decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people
because
he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple
terms
like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL
general and specialized knowledge
provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what
Wikipedia is all about.
I agree with all of this. "Free" is fine with me and I agree I
don't
think anyone cares
about copyright issues on GFDL text.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l