Doing another multi-licensing drive is the next best thing (though time machines are alot more fun). I forget which user performed the last multi-license drive (he/she used a bot to post on user's talk pages, quite controvertial at the time). I, personally, would happily multilicense into CC-by-sa for the sake of the project (I'm surprised I haven't done it yet).
On 12/07/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/7/12, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Can an individual organisation such as Wikimedia change their requirements, despite the license, to something more lenient as you are suggesting? Even if they did, could some external organisation/person have a problem with it? Could the Free Software Foundation claim that we're misusing the GFDL? If they did, could they demand we use a different license (I think not, but I'll ask anyway)? Well, I'm just speculating, but they're questions that should be considered.
No, technically we cannot. I don't think the FSF can make such a claim, but the individual authors of that Wikipedia page might well have a point if they claim it is violating their copyright.
I sometimes wished I had a time machine so I could go to January 2001 and warn Jimbo about the problems of the GFDL, advising him to find or create another license for Wikipedia.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l