Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Many organisations publish modified versions of Wikipedia, so it's useful > for them to be able to be able to move their version to cc-by-sa instead of > having to drop their version, take a fresh copy of Wikipedia after the > (possible) change of licence, and redo their changes. Just a guess. >
So my post-2009 scenario is going to rear its head with forks of Wikipedia that are going to be potentially incompatible - people still on GFDL at that point would be creating modifications which can't be merged back. Going through the Wikimedia discussion, the whole idea of a mostly dual-licensed but somewhat CC-BY-SA-only Wikipedia sounded pretty bad. Having forks would be worse, though. I have to say, I'm really struggling with this. The only "bright side" I see to this is that the potential damage is mostly limited in scope and time... Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
