[Foundation-l] Knol: on the bright side of things...

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 20:04:18 UTC 2008

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am going to suggest the heretical proposition that we have
>> everything to gain by changing our licensing so export to them under
>> their present policies (or some attainable modification of them) is
>> interpreted as being within our license, even if it allows the
>> creation of unfree derivatives, and accepts a link to a Wikipedia
>> article as adequate author designation for previously contributed
>> content.  (I am aware of the difficulties in making the transition)
>> The principle I suggest is that the increase in freely accessible
>> content is more important that the principle of libre
>> publication--that we are more likely to add to the existing structure
>> of publication in the world than to replace it.
> Even if your proposal were popular (and given the history of previous
> dicussions of this type in this forum, it is likely highly
> unpopular...) is it even worth discussing given that you would have to
> go back and request all previous authors of Wikipedia articles to
> re-release their edits under a new license? It's not just "difficult"
> but approaching impossible.
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

Some of us dual-license under GFDL and CC-BY anyways.

That doesn't help with anyone else's contributions to WP articles, but
any of mine could be imported to Knol as-is with credit given.  And
I'm not the only one.

-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com

More information about the foundation-l mailing list