[Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

[Nathan]

The reasoning given in the FAQ for adopting a passed deadline makes sense,
and while some may disagree that it was necessary it certainly isn't
"absurd." Let's wait a little while longer before declaring the terms of the
license to be a disaster, especially since "first to the mark" with
criticism doesn't correlate with expertise.

Nathan


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> > 2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> >> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> >> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> >> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> >> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> >> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> >> translated.
> >
> > No. Please re-read the "eligible for licensing" section and the
> > definition of an "MMC Site". Wikipedia.org can clearly be considered a
> > single "MMC Site". This doesn't require interpreting all of Wikipedia
> > as a single work. Notice that even the definition of MMC uses the word
> > "works".
>
> Ok, so the extent of the problem is reducing, but there are still
> going to be things added between the deadline and whenever we decide
> to switch (assuming we do switch, that isn't definite). It's nothing
> short of absurd to have the deadline two days before the license was
> released. I told you it was important to run a draft by the community
> before releasing the final copy, this is exactly what I was talking
> about.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>