On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/2/3 Brian <[email protected]>: >> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the >> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms >> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see >> it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki >> license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can >> get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis >> face and other content mediums do not. > > We can't relicense GFDL works under a license which isn't in the same > spirit, a license which allowed attribution to "Wikipedia" without the > explicit consent of the author wouldn't be in the same spirit.
My reading of the spirit clause: "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." is that it is really only binding on the FSF, and it is fuzzy enough to allow them lots of wiggle room. (Which parts of the license constitute its spirit, and which are merely details?) As the maintainers of the license they would seem to have wide latitude to decide. I don't know if the FSF would allow attribution by "Wikipedia", and there are certainly some good arguments against it, but I wouldn't assume that it couldn't happen. By allowing the CC-BY-SA migration in the first place they have already made a quite substantial change in how licensing is handled, and I wouldn't assume they would rule out other large changes. -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
