[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/8 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
>> I concur.  The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
>> attribution to look like.  Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
>> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
>> whether to support the vote.  However the absence of any guidance
>> about what is appropriate attribution strikes me as a strong reason to
>> be critical.
>
> Not really. Firstly the WMF is in no position to provide such advice.
> It is not a significant copyright holder and it doesn't write the
> license. Major wikipedia authors and CC are in a far better position.

The WMF will, however, decide what people need to agree to in order to
contribute to Wikipedia (and the other projects, of course, I've been
kind of ignoring them in this thread for convinience). There will
almost certainly be a message written by the WMF (after community
consultation) saying something along the lines of "By clicking
"submit" you are agreeing to release your content under CC-BY-SA with
the following attribution requirements and no others: ...", just as
there is currently (and will continue to be) a message saying you have
to release things under GFDL with no invariant sections, etc.