[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Nov 22 06:29:40 UTC 2007
> I would second George here. I'd like to know what you would think of an
> evolution toward a cc-by-sa type of license.
> Just for the record, I would not be confortable at all leaving aside the
> viral aspect of our license. I consider it an essential element of what
> we are doing.
We have multiple projects and for some it makes sense to have a viral aspect
to the license like for Wikipedia and Wikibooks. For some like Wiktionary,
Wikinews and Commons it does not make sense. We do acknowledge this in
having another license for Wikinews and for allowing many many licenses for
For Wiktionary it does not make sense as the individual articles are made up
of facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted in the first place, they can only be
copyrighted as a collection. Neither the individual articles nor the
collection has a single copyright holder. From a more philosophical
position, once facts are continuously published under a free license, it
becomes increasingly impossible to take all this published freedom away.
This helps us in what in my understanding is we aim for; bringing
information to people.
It does not necessarily mean that we bring the physical information to
people. We are quite happy to have others bring information as well. This is
where the viral aspect of Wikipedia content pays off. However, when you
consider the Chinese Wikipedia that is forked by Baidu in a way that I
understand is incompatible with the license, when I consider that nobody
takes any action about it, I find it proves that effectively the Wikipedia
copyright and license is a paper tiger. Here I am not aware of any action
More information about the foundation-l