Doing another multi-licensing drive is the next best thing (though
time machines are alot more fun). I forget which user performed the
last multi-license drive (he/she used a bot to post on user's talk
pages, quite controvertial at the time). I, personally, would happily
multilicense into CC-by-sa for the sake of the project (I'm surprised
I haven't done it yet).
On 12/07/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2006/7/12, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>om>:
Can an individual organisation such as Wikimedia
change their
requirements, despite the license, to something more lenient as you
are suggesting? Even if they did, could some external
organisation/person have a problem with it? Could the Free Software
Foundation claim that we're misusing the GFDL? If they did, could they
demand we use a different license (I think not, but I'll ask anyway)?
Well, I'm just speculating, but they're questions that should be
considered.
No, technically we cannot. I don't think the FSF can make such a
claim, but the individual authors of that Wikipedia page might well
have a point if they claim it is violating their copyright.
I sometimes wished I had a time machine so I could go to January 2001
and warn Jimbo about the problems of the GFDL, advising him to find or
create another license for Wikipedia.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l