<quote who="Nelson Pavlosky" date="Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:37:02PM -0800"> > Last time we discussed this issue, we came to the conclusion that we > should use a simple Attribution license, and avoid all of the > incompatibility issues between by-nc-sa and by-sa. Does that still make > sense?
I think the more permissive the license is, the better. In other words, BY or BY-SA would both be great. > Do the benefits of viral licensing now outweigh the compatibility > costs? It's a tactical decision that should be based on what you think will maximize freedom for users and creators. In this case, I tend to think that the benefits (and the statement that using a SA license makes) outweight the costs to compatibility. But that's just my opinion. > P.S. We are currently using the GFDL on our wiki. I am not holding my breath for compatibility. The will certainly seems to be there from the CC side but for real bi-directional compatibility, we need buy-in from the FSF as well. I've heard folks there say they think it would be nice but not have heard anything like the type of committment that we've heard from Lessig et al. Perhaps I just missed it. Too bad really, because compatibility would be great. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --RMS _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
