Hoi, My opinion is that the CC-by-sa has always been the right license. The GFDL served us well and I am really grateful to the FSF that they were so gracious to allow us to move over to the CC-by-sa. The CC-by-sa is a different license and it was the accepted wisdom that CC-by-sa material could be used in a GFDL environment.
The problem that I now have with the GFDL is very much the result of the unending threatening noises on this list about the legalities of the GFDL and the trheat to sue to "get ensure that their rights prevail". I have sadly learned to head such warnings. Now I do believe that the existing material is largely by people who provided them with all the best intentions.The militancy of the GFDL nuts have spoilt my faith in a continued acceptable outcome. That is why I argue against continued acceptance of GFDL only material. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/6 Petr Kadlec <petr.kad...@gmail.com> > 2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > > It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again, > > Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently > it > > is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its > material. > > So, your opinion is that Wikipedia (et al.) had always been violating > copyrights of authors of CC-licensed images used in its articles? > Interesting to hear that… > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] > > _______________________________________________ > 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