wikimail at inbox.org
Fri Jan 23 03:20:56 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org>:
> > Anthony writes:
> >> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
> >> appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
> >> content, new
> >> Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
> >> content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
> > You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA-
> > only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind
> > Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
> I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content"
> - CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you
> really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every
> opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad
> hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense?
Thanks. By "new Wikipedia content" I meant content first contributed to
To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now. 1) I never said
I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would
likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the
WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable. *IF*
more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes
ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I
think a fork would be viable.
More information about the foundation-l