geni writes:
You are ignoring the other players. The FSF and art libre. If there were to be any changes to the CC-BY-SA we might have to talk to the EFF since we probably don't want them splitting their Open Audio License off again.
Until we see a full draft there is little community can do either way.
For what it's worth, EFF favors in principle the harmonization of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (Full disclosure -- I worked as staff counsel for EFF for nine years, and I maintain plenty of contacts there.) They take the view that CC-BY-SA is viral, but nevertheless makes licensed content easier to use than the current GFDL (designed for software manuals) does. I view this as a feature, not a bug, since I believe the mission of Wikimedia Foundation is to share information and make sure it remains shared, and not merely to be a custodian of the meaning of GFDL (that's what FSF is for).
--Mike
On 12/2/07, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, EFF favors in principle the harmonization of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (Full disclosure -- I worked as staff counsel for EFF for nine years, and I maintain plenty of contacts there.) They take the view that CC-BY-SA is viral, but nevertheless makes licensed content easier to use than the current GFDL (designed for software manuals) does. I view this as a feature, not a bug, since I believe the mission of Wikimedia Foundation is to share information and make sure it remains shared, and not merely to be a custodian of the meaning of GFDL (that's what FSF is for).
GFDL (or GSFDL) compatible with CC-BY-SA is completely other story because FSF would be behind such license.
While we had technical problems with GFDL, I didn't see any problem with FSF's intentions. Unlike with FSF's intentions, I saw a lot of problems with CC's intentions and I don't want to be in the position that my projects depend on those intentions.
In other words, while we have FSF license, everything is fine.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org