On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Gregory Kohs <thekoh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Look, if the license is itself a feeble instrument that almost begs to > be mocked, then I guess the "caveat emptor" applies not only to the > stooges who might buy these books (is there any evidence that anyone > is actually purchasing them?), but also to the content generators who > release their work under licenses they (falsely) think will carry some > oomph in the marketplace.
Yes, you shouldn't submit anything to Wikipedia that you're not comfortable basically releasing into the public domain. The GFDL offered little protection, CC-BY-SA offers even less, and the WMF's interpretation of CC-BY-SA offers basically no protection (the only entity that the WMF says has to be given credit is "Wikipedia", and they can't even sue if that credit isn't given, so basically you've got a catch-22 situation where the people who could potentially sue aren't the people who are harmed). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
