Commons is the most compelling project to be compatible with. If you actually look into the details of CC-BY-SA it is the license Wikinews would probably have chosen were it available at the time. CC-BY-SA makes Wikipedia content vastly more useful to a lot of places and clears up significant potential fair use issues quoting content on non-CC-BY-SA sites.
Remember, Wikipedia ended up GFDL as a historical accident. They've worked from that - including strongarming 'The Bearded One' - into writing a get-out-of-GFDL clause. CC-BY-SA is *currently* the best choice for the WMF mission. I don't think it was available when Wikinews went from PD to CC-BY.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jason Safoutin Sent: 30 May 2009 16:26 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikipedia's 'In the news'
Why though? Then what purpose does it serve to have changed WP to CC-BY-SA if it still prevents copying from WP to WN or the likes? In that sense, it really makes no logical sense. I thought the goal was to make the WP license more compatible with other project licenses? If so then changing it to CC-BY-SA isn't doing that at all (aside from commons).