On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline > > reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond > listing > > one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have > > taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the > switch. > > That is incorrect and an assumption of bad faith. If you read the > actual Q&A the reasons for re-licensing are very clearly and correctly > stated. I've read your FAQ. I've already read your "declaration of bias" and your "ideology". I'm not assuming bad faith. I've concluded it. > My question for anyone opposed to this approach is this: Do you > acknowledge that there is a problem with GFDL-licensing in terms of > compatibility and ease of re-use, and if so, how do you propose to > solve it? I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused to facilitate the application of it. > As far as I am concerned, if there is any moral case to be > made here, it's a clear and strong moral case for maximizing > information freedom through license compatibility and clear, > consistent usage guidelines. Sure, you're strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property". Of course, I can't really figure out why. You say you're not a libertarian, and you say you're not a socialist. What's your problem with intellectual property? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
