On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < [email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Rohde wrote: > > If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] > > in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", > > then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't > > agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we > > probably shouldn't be considering adopting it. > > > Again I have to record dissent. Do keep in mind that under > what we are escaping from under, not even the guardians > of that license were able to answer that question. So staying > under GFDL is not a real way to dodge the issue. > The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the "relicensing" under CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen. Now on the gripping hand, if the real problem you have > here is the fear that some time later, after the migration > the foundation were to unilaterally express an interpretation > of allowable "reasonable" forms of attribution, I would have > to regretfully admit that given past form (and sadly, opinions > expressed by some influential people in the foundation staff) > that is not unfathomable. And then there's that, which is by far my biggest problem with this switch. I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia). The only thing I can offer is that > that would of course be a new ball game, and the same > people waving whiffle-bats around, would be involved there > and then, again. I not only think possible, but am reassured > that a bad result could not stand, for long. Please trust the > good sense of the community being able to countermand > the understandable errors of the foundations operatives. Rushing to a premature decision is exactly the problem that provided the GFDL in the first place. I see no reason not to take the time to do things right. Even if the August 1, 2009 deadline can't be reached (and I see no reason for this), it can always be extended via a GFDL 1.4. (Or even better, GFDL 2.0 whose draft already contains a GSFDL clause.) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
