[Foundation-l] Re-licensing

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
> >> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
> >> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
> >> preferred implementation would look like, within the scope of what we
> >> consider to be legally defensible parameters.
> >
> >
> > If more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, it'll probably
> be
> > enough of a critical mass to support a fork, licensed under the GFDL 1.2
> > only.
>
> Nope. The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be
> looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way.


What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable?  Clean up the history
tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright
statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the "real name" preference,
and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into compliance.  You might have
to forego dreams of a print edition, but frankly that doesn't seem very
effective anyway.  You could probably build a hand powered e-reader for less
than the cost of printing all of Wikipedia - if not today than in the not
too distant future.