[Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
My opinion is that the CC-by-sa has always been the right license. The GFDL
served us well and I am really grateful to the FSF that they were so
gracious to allow us to move over to the CC-by-sa. The CC-by-sa is a
different license and it was the accepted wisdom that CC-by-sa material
could be used in a GFDL environment.

The problem that I now have with the GFDL is very much the result of the
unending threatening noises on this list about the legalities of the GFDL
and the trheat to sue to "get ensure that their rights prevail". I have
sadly learned to head such  warnings. Now I do believe that the existing
material is largely by people who provided them with all the best
intentions.The militancy of the GFDL nuts have spoilt my faith in a
continued acceptable outcome. That is why I argue against continued
acceptance of GFDL only material.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/8/6 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec at gmail.com>

> 2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
> > Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently
> it
> > is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its
> material.
>
> So, your opinion is that Wikipedia (et al.) had always been violating
> copyrights of authors of CC-licensed images used in its articles?
> Interesting to hear that…
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>