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

geni geniice at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 14:34:14 UTC 2009


2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch.  Compatibility can
> be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
>
> That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have
> to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.

Since the GFDL doesn't actually require that you credit the author at
all in many cases technically true but not actually helpful towards
your position.



> Why wait under after the switch?  Why not start by complying with the GFDL,
> before you even begin discussing changing it to some other license.

Wikipedia for the most part complies with the GFDL as has been
explained to you many many times. That you are unable to grasp this is
not ultimately our problem mind.



> It should be on the title page, i.e., next to the title.

Look where the history tab is.


> I don't see the WMF reducing or removing attribution any more than they have
> already been doing (but maybe I'm wrong, what has happened so far has
> already surprised me - I never thought the FSF would go along with this
> plan, in fact it had been promised that they couldn't).  What I see the WMF
> doing is: 1) changing the license to fit their practices, rather than
> changing their practices to fit the license; and 2) encouraging others to
> distribute the content without attributing the vast majority of the authors.

CC-BY-SA actually has stronger author crediting command than the GFDL
so your conspiracy theories are again flawed.


-- 
geni



More information about the foundation-l mailing list