[Textbook-l] RE: Anonymous contributions

[Alex T.]

 I'd don't know if it is too late if we can get the Free Software Foundation
to allow us to create a specific Wikimedia ver.2 successor license that
will apply ONLY to what has been posted on Wikipedia on ver 1 licenses
(it is currently 1.2, no?). I cannot see any reason why FSF would not allow
that as it is within the spirit of open content and copyleft, it would just
make it better for an online knowledge base to adapt the license that
was originally written for software manuals so that it will encourage more
distribution of knowledge.
FSF certainly has the power to create a successor license to v.1.2 that will
only apply to certain materials, unless of course if they want to do it so
that
anyone who uses v. 1.2 or a similar license that might be approved. Maybe
we can have them put that similar licence successor clause put in so that
it could then point to a native Wikimedia copyleft license (that would have
been approved by FSF). All future content could be directly licensed under
Wikimedia's native license (which could include a broad non-exclusive
licencing clause and also an "as-is" warranty waiver which is not in the GNU
FDL).
alex756
 "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:01 PM
wrote: >
> Absolutely, except that now it is too late for Wikipedia.
>
> If I were doing it all again with benefit of hindsight, I would have
> setup wikipedia *from the start* to require everyone to contribute
> under a disjunctive license that said, basically, people can
> redistribute under the terms of the GNU FDL or any other content
> license specifically approved by the FSF as free and copyleft.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l