[Foundation-l] The license situation

[John at Darkstar]

I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
and how it will react on something like this.

John

Anthony skrev:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> Which leads me to another question.  Who controls this definition?
>>> http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I
>> couldn't
>>> find anything about the current situation.
>> It's based on community consensus. See
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
>>
> 
> Right, but who controls what it's based on?  Who owns the website?  Who owns
> the trademark?
> 
> I guess I see the answer to the first question:
> http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
> 
> Whew.  For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might be considering the
> world's first "copyright license that anyone can edit".  What a disastrous
> idea that would be.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>