Alex R. wrote:
It is ironic that these various licenses are
incompatible with each
other, maybe a simpler solution would be to have a very straightforward
license like has been used commonly in areas where non-exclusive
licensing is a commercial reality and just make sure that atribution
is preserved (sort of like the moral rights approach of European
copyright) isn't that what we all really want when we talk about
open content?
Absolutely, except that now it is too late for Wikipedia.
If I were doing it all again with benefit of hindsight, I would have
setup wikipedia *from the start* to require everyone to contribute
under a disjunctive license that said, basically, people can
redistribute under the terms of the GNU FDL or any other content
license specifically approved by the FSF as free and copyleft.
--Jimbo