2009/2/4 Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net>: > That case is completely different - it's about "misappropriation of a > software program by a company that publishes model train hobbyist > software"[2], not a community seeking to relicense its 'own' content. >
The community has no legal standing. From the POV of the courts you have one group of people trying to misappropriate the content of another rather larger group of people (we've always had far more casual contributers of content than community memebers) > Exactly. This whole discussion reminds me of the obnoxious advertising > clause in the old BSD licenses[1]: Only if you don't know the history of CC. CC-SA 1.0 exists. It was never very popular so was dropped. > CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very > likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'. The license as it is > is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the wiki > license?) and I certainly don't see any show-stoppers. Good. Then accept it as it is and we can discuss credit clauses in future versions of the license after the switchover. >And comparing a > commercial online storage service with us really is scraping the > bottom of the FUD barrel. Huh? We like yahoo. Where do you think a bunch of our servers come from? If you react that badly to something like that why on earth would you want to weaken the attribution clause? Commercial is irrelevant in any case. No one is suggesting we switch to an NC license. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
