2009/6/18 Erik Moeller <[email protected]>: > 2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir <[email protected]>: >> 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." > > The GNU FDL does not apply to pages that import CC-BY-SA only content. > We now already have a few examples of that with content imported from > Citizendium. Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of > re-users, and because it doesn't apply to all pages, and because > re-users have to verify that it _actually_ applies on a per-page > basis, I think it's completely appropriate to refer to the terms of > use here rather than bloating up the site footer. People have to read > the terms anyway to understand what's going on.
That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms" rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
