Bryan, Lets just stop there and think about is shall we? When we started this project in 2006 we were rated as "easily highly compliant" by mirrors and forks group (and we do have a local copy of the license, which is still above "medium"). Would you like all the diffs on WP? That first version was online up on fixedreference.org/ / Subsequent to that we were asked to add image pages and did, partly because Anthere is a sweetie and partly because we could see the argument logically. Creative Commons was explicit about local copies of names, it was unclear whether people you upload a file hitting a "GDFL" submit button can impose additional conditions like CC but fair enough. It is only 34500 additional pages to check for vandalism, swear words and clean up and include as disk space versus 5500 pages for the actual content. So we are an "improved on an easily highly compliant position" basis original standard. The license hasn't changed since then. So what has happened? People have just added their own ideas of what they'd like to the "interpretation", without reference to the license, including loads of stuff the license doesn't say. Can they do that legally? Of course not. And should we respect as a community standard all the additional "nice-to-haves" added on? Well, we are nice guys and we're trying to and we'd like to but I kind of think a little more apology for moving all the goalposts around and putting barriers to accessibility in would be in order. Insistence on the image pages is a series pain in the back-side to offline copies already. We are comfortable we comply legally and the vast number of comments we have had over the years have been supportive of our interpretation of the licenses, and desirous to improve access to Wikipedia. This may be different to the intepretation of some people who lately edit the copyright pages but they haven't even produced a rationale for how the content relates to the licenses. Currently we are more compliant at least in respect of image pages than the other offline "official" community projects (the Wikipedia Release Version series). And as far as we can see we comply completely with the actual text of the license. If you want more than that I am happy talking about what we can do but only on a basis which is reflective of the situation. Andrew On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l