On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am going to suggest the heretical proposition
that we have
everything to gain by changing our licensing so export to them under
their present policies (or some attainable modification of them) is
interpreted as being within our license, even if it allows the
creation of unfree derivatives, and accepts a link to a Wikipedia
article as adequate author designation for previously contributed
content. (I am aware of the difficulties in making the transition)
The principle I suggest is that the increase in freely accessible
content is more important that the principle of libre
publication--that we are more likely to add to the existing structure
of publication in the world than to replace it.
Even if your proposal were popular (and given the history of previous
dicussions of this type in this forum, it is likely highly
unpopular...) is it even worth discussing given that you would have to
go back and request all previous authors of Wikipedia articles to
re-release their edits under a new license? It's not just "difficult"
but approaching impossible.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Some of us dual-license under GFDL and CC-BY anyways.
That doesn't help with anyone else's contributions to WP articles, but
any of mine could be imported to Knol as-is with credit given. And
I'm not the only one.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com