The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we
choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is
in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on
the subject make a difference.
2009/2/18 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
2009/2/18 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>et>:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I
don't think it's critical
that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
get some more information that would help work out details for
attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for
good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after
whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a
large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's
just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards,
and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are
interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license
without knowing what that license means.
foundation-l mailing list