[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

[White Cat]

Why not dual license everything? Both under GFDL and CC as of now on? A
thought.

    - White Cat

On 9/10/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 9/9/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > Agreed, but not applicable, as what would be ethical would be to
> start
> > > > following the GFDL.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, from a legal standpoint, that'd be irrelevant, since the
> > > > WMF has already had its rights terminated under the GFDL (see
> section
> > > > 9).
> > >
> > > WMF is not a publisher so it's rights are irrelevant.
> >
> > True, I suppose, in which case every single person who has ever edited
> > a Wikipedia article has had their rights terminated under section 9.
> >
> > > Wikipedia
> > > documents are within the GFDL as long as you consider the entire
> > > document (the article text, the history and various other bits) rather
> > > than a single page.
> >
> > Perhaps you could point me to the title page which lists the five
> > principal authors of the Document, then.
>
> Strangely the GFDL does not state the the title page and history page
> cannot be the same thing.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>