On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <mgod...@wikimedia.org>: > > > > Anthony writes: > > > >> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most > >> appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new > >> content, new > >> Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked > >> content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia. > > > > You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- > > only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind > > Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content. > > I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content" > - CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you > really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every > opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad > hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense? > Thanks. By "new Wikipedia content" I meant content first contributed to Wikipedia. To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now. 1) I never said I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable. *IF* more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I think a fork would be viable. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l