2009/5/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkb...@gmail.com>: > You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen > Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance, > the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether. > I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
That's because the GFDL is monstrously ill-suited to wiki content in the case of the "suit from persistent insane content author" threat model. In practice, best-effort is about the best that can be done. Even then the querulous will try to make trouble for the reusers (see [[:en:Talk:Freebase]] for a recent example). Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever. That other sites have used the GFDL following Wikimedia's lead is not a sufficient justification for claims or implications that the GFDL was in any way adequate for what we do, ever. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
