You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance, the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course. Newyorkbrad On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2009/5/28 David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com>: > > >Free culture arose to permit > > > reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the > > > FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as > > > compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's > > > nothing that needs to be negotiated. > > > > It's a great way to get reuses sued by discruntled wikipedians but has > > no useful function. > > > Reusers have pretty much never followed the GFDL, yet there haven't been > any > lawsuits. At best the recent legal contortions will change nothing, at > worst it will inspire lawsuits where there would have been none. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
