GFDL 1.3

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

"Sam Liddicott" <sam at liddicott.com> writes:
> I wonder that wikipedia wasn't just mentioned outright instead of a vaguer
> sounding clause that has an additional unknown quantity of leaks

I wondered this too.  Maybe the answer is that it wouldn't be legally sound
to do it that way.  Or maybe it's that FSF is acknowledging that the
Wikipedia Foundation is just one publisher of Wikipedia.

Many organisations publish modified versions of Wikipedia, so it's useful
for them to be able to be able to move their version to cc-by-sa instead of
having to drop their version, take a fresh copy of Wikipedia after the
(possible) change of licence, and redo their changes.  Just a guess.

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org

Recent blog entries:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/status_of_fsfe_s_legal_dept_ftf
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid