On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Too bad Wikimedia TOS still labors under the misapprehension that the >> licence doesn't mean what it says. > > Can you be specific, to make this into actionable feedback? >
Well, since you insist. Though it doesn't really matter if it is true that the letter of the licence can be upheld. The Wikimedia TOS would lose quite clearly. There is a metric ton of discussion about this very subject on the mailing list, around the time we migrated from GFDL to a CC licence. I don't expect your memory to reach that far, and definitely don't expect you to go digging into that pile of *expletive*. I sure wouldn't. The skinny is that despite a good few people arguing that the TOS can not exact more onerous terms of attribution than the licence itself stated in text, the TOS as it currently stands, does require onerous attribution to Wikimedia of a type which Wikimedia does not itself adhere to upstream. It is a bit technical. Really rather not go over that again. But it is a fact. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
