"Sam Liddicott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wonder that wikipedia wasn't just mentioned outright instead of a vaguer > sounding clause that has an additional unknown quantity of leaks
I wondered this too. Maybe the answer is that it wouldn't be legally sound to do it that way. Or maybe it's that FSF is acknowledging that the Wikipedia Foundation is just one publisher of Wikipedia. Many organisations publish modified versions of Wikipedia, so it's useful for them to be able to be able to move their version to cc-by-sa instead of having to drop their version, take a fresh copy of Wikipedia after the (possible) change of licence, and redo their changes. Just a guess. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/status_of_fsfe_s_legal_dept_ftf http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
