2011/2/18 David Gerard <[email protected]>: > 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.
I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
