No subject

Sun Jul 1 19:24:19 UTC 2007

issue
of authors addressed in whatever new FDL license comes out. The wiki way =
of
tracking an article's history provides more information than the license
requires, yet some can argue it does not meet the terms. The terms =
*should*
state that the data be presented in a human-readable format which is - =
if
needed - documented. I am sure there are aspects to the currently being
developed license that take more into account the nature of works on the
Internet; the old license seems more geared towards print in this =
respect.

Going back to Wikinews, and our CC-BY license, we've been using GFDL =
images
from Commons for ages - am I missing some subtle distinction between
licenses that means we're not in the wrong doing this? Some of the =
comments
in this discussion have suggested that if you use any GFDL content the
document containing it must also be GFDL.

Brian McNeil.