Hoi,
Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also
my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can
be legally used by our downstream users of our content.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa <chiesa.ma...@gmail.com>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
> Meijssen<gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Commons accepts materials that are free according to
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
> definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
> we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
> cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that
> works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst
> feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's
> no reason to stop doing it.
>
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
