Hoi,
The purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects is to make material
available and have it used as widely as possible. The fact that we have two
licenses is a reasonable compromise because it allows everyone who remained
on the GFDL to continue to use our material. The purpose of the change has
been to allow the use of our material that is predominantly using only the
Creative Commons license.
The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the
CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong
license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are
compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that
WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting
GFDL only material when our reusers might.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/4 Nemo_bis <nemow...@gmail.com>
> Petr Kadlec, 04/08/2009 10:34:
> > I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with
> > CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text.
>
> Still, it's quite awful to have to comply to two licenses to reproduce
> one article (CC-BY-SA for text + GFDL for images): then, you'll have to
> use GFDL only (if it's possibile with that article) or more likely to
> get rid of those images (yes, on a DVD you could add GFDL text and so on
> to use those images too, but that's not so good neither).
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
