SV> I still dont see Evans point -- what would be the reason for SV> breaking from GNU FDL at all? Umm, here's the deal: http://www.wikitravel.org/article/Wikitravel:Why_Wikitravel_isn%27t_GFDL The basics: we want Wikitravel content to be useful as 1-2 page fliers, printouts, etc. Tourist agencies, hotels could keep stacks on the counter and pass them out in paper form. Helpful travellers could keep copies of articles in their backpacks. The GFDL requires also distributing the 8-10 page content of the GFDL itself, as well as a changelog, with each article. If you distribute more than 100 copies -- pretty reasonable, actually -- you also have to distribute the "transparent" work, i.e. Wiki markup source code. So if you have a stack of 100 photocopies of a one-page article -- pretty reasonable -- you have to have 1000 pages of license text and a stack of 100 floppy disks or CD-ROMs. With the by-sa CC license, you have a copyright notice and the URL of the license. Baddabingbaddaboom. We need a print-it-and-go-license; the GFDL is much more oriented to publishing bound books, where adding another 10 pages isn't really that important. SV> Its not the software that drives wiki -- its the open SV> principle that drives the softwares development (no to mention SV> the WP's resonance) -- the FDL is simply a way to codify that SV> principle. Quote: "Contributors (OK, all 20 so far B-) and SV> redistributors of Wikitravel" I'm not sure I followed this part. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org> Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide