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.
--
geni