2009/1/8 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the switch.
That is incorrect and an assumption of bad faith. If you read the actual Q&A the reasons for re-licensing are very clearly and correctly stated. The primary and motivating reason for offering content under CC-BY-SA has always been full license compatibility. The secondary reason has been the overall complexity of the GFDL which makes it burdensome for re-users. Full duplication of history sections is only one aspect of that overall complexity.
That said, it's always been an accepted practice for web use to attribute by linking to the history. Because CC-BY-SA allows attribution requirements to be detailed in terms of use, it will make it straightforward for us to codify attribution requirements in a manner that is accepted and largely mirrors current practice. In fact, the language that could be used for this purpose could be very similar to the one proposed by Gregory Maxwell here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text
My question for anyone opposed to this approach is this: Do you acknowledge that there is a problem with GFDL-licensing in terms of compatibility and ease of re-use, and if so, how do you propose to solve it? As far as I am concerned, if there is any moral case to be made here, it's a clear and strong moral case for maximizing information freedom through license compatibility and clear, consistent usage guidelines.