2009/1/22 Anthony <[email protected]>: > 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?
What I mean is that if we consider the proposal to be legal under the CC license (I don't) then any fork would be better of using CC-BY-SA-3.0 without utilising the "Attribution Parties" bit of 4(C)(i). This means that it would get the benefits of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license without the downside that certain people appear to be trying to add. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
