On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 15:59, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not really. In the current notice the footnote stuff isn't technically > required. It's mostly there to provide something to point to if people > start trying to use the more annoying features of the GFDL. To the > average editor who wouldn't think of doing that it doesn't really > matter.
True, but my larger point wasn't about the footnote's contents - it was that the current notice is as short as it is because it links elsewhere for the actual license details. (Similarly, the current notice links elsewhere to define "copyright" and "verifiable".) By extension, we can keep the revised notice relatively brief by using links to refer elsewhere for license text and/or discussion. -- Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
