On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/22 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > What about the GFDL 1.2 is so bad that it is unusable? Clean up the > history > > tracking, add five names next to each article title, add a copyright > > statement at the bottom of each article, turn on the "real name" > preference, > > and it seems like you could bring Wikipedia into compliance. You might > have > > to forego dreams of a print edition, but frankly that doesn't seem very > > effective anyway. You could probably build a hand powered e-reader for > less > > than the cost of printing all of Wikipedia - if not today than in the not > > too distant future. > > Wikipedia is in compliance with the GFDL.
So why can't a fork be in compliance with the GFDL? You said that "The GFDL 1.2 license is so bad that any fork would still be looking to use CC just in a slightly more legal way." What do you mean by this? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
