Cross post with Wikipedia-l (please respond there)
Delirium wrote:
I think this whole thing is unfortunate though,
and it's becoming increasingly clear that the
GFDL exactly as written isn't *really* what
we want to do. I think most Wikipedians would
be happier with a license that required Wikipedia
to be credited rather than five authors. As it
stands now, the republisher *has* to credit five
authors, but does *not* have to credit Wikipedia
at all. They could give it their own name and
not mention its connection to us at all, as long
as they list the authors properly. I think most
of us would prefer the opposite -- that they be
required to credit Wikipedia, and not be required
to credit the individual authors. But this would
require a license change, which may be impossible
at this point.
1) This is more appropriate for Wikipedia-L
2) On Textbook-L we are already talking about
persuading the GNU people make a FDL 2.0 that states
that anything licensed under the GNU FDL 2.0 or later
that does /not/ have invariant sections or cover
texts, can also be licensed under a "GNU LFDL" which
would be written more along the lines of the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike License (and the LFDL
would also explicitly state that any LFDL text can be
used under the CC-Att/SA, the GNU FDL 2.0 or later or,
of course, the LFDL). The idea is to dump the GNU FDL
and its problems and relicense all Wikimedia content
under the less restrictive and less complex LFDL. See
the archives: Look for the "wikiversity licensing"
thread at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-August/subject.html#sta…
Which reminds me again; we really need a Wikimedia-l
mailing list to talk about these types of
Wikimedia-wide issues and also discus new project
ideas like Wikiversity.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
See also:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
(a copyleft content license)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com