Erik Moeller schreef: [cut] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation > > Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local > bottom-up implementation between now and then.
Question; >From the Q&A about this; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_2009QA > Are you basically replacing the GFDL on Wikipedia with CC-BY-SA? > > No, we proposed that all content currently available under GFDL will also > be made available under the CC-BY-SA license, and that all future revisions > must be dual licensed, with the exception of CC-BY-SA-only additions from > external sources. When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License". No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL. Yes, there is the phrase; "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." But is that not a weasley way of saying it is actually dual-licensed and also GNU/FDL? That is not very Wikipedia style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
