On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo <[email protected]> wrote: > Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific > licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other > licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a > variety of circumstances. Destroying licenses looks as bad as > destroying biological species. Biodiversity is needed.
No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum of PD <-> CC-by (equiv) <-> CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification. Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the right thing to do as it maximises reusability. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
