On Wednesday 06 August 2003 03:05, Andre Engels wrote:
So you are basically saying that because we are not
likely to get sued for
it in court, it does not matter?
That's stretching it a little[1]. I'm saying that no one is being harmed, and
no one that contributes to Wikipedia can reasonably claim that they had any
expectation of the sections you mentioned being followed.
I'm not really saying it *doesn't matter* -- testing the limits of law is
rarely a good idea -- but rather that I don't think it poses any serious
problems. We're talking about one clause I don't think we're really
violating, two that we *are* (for some values of violating), and a fourth
that nobody's going to file a lawsuit based on, and even if they did it'd
never get past the first hearing. "Revision history" vs "History" is
just
silly.
In that case, I propose that we announce
that we shift from GNU/FDL to CC license in a few months' time as soon as
possible. I don't think anyone would mind, and if someone does, we can
still remove their text at request. If then they still want to go to court,
they'll have a hard time arguing that the CC license (with removal on
request) damaged them in a way the GNU/FDL would not have.
I'll need a link to the specific CC license we're talking about to decide just
how absurd this is (I've not seen the thread(s) that defined which CC license
is favoured here), but I seriously doubt we could get away with it without
losing most of our content.
[1] Please note that I'm not known for my ability to articulate myself. If you
think I'm saying one thing but I might reasonably be saying something else,
do ask what the heck I'm blabbering about. :)