2009/1/10 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. > Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even > arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles > where I am the last author or for historical revisions.
Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every modified version is first distributed by someone other than the foundation. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that rather than a modified version. > I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've > implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0. That doesn't even make sense > Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0. You've never demonstrated an ability to understand any free license or copyright law in general so that doesn't greatly concern me. > It isn't clear what it means. > There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require > attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in a section name and one reference to the section. There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause. >Further, there > seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require "a link" to > such attribution, and that's even worse. That is actually a step up from what the GFDL requires (and remember the GFDL has no problems in principle with stuff being provided by link see the whole transparent copy stuff) > And then, topping it off, there > are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a > URL as "attribution". And Creative Commons is working closely with these > people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance > CC-BY-SA 4.0 will. I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as acceptable attribution. > I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather > not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much > point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC image on a postcard. GFDL not so much. > You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people > relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just > as well. Obviously you think there are some "onerous requirements" in the > GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these > requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the > GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all? Because switching because allowing the shift to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is their way of removing them. About the only remotely significant stuff still under the GFDL once the switch is over will be software manuals for which the GFDL is merely a tolerably bad license. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l