[wp-docs] An Amendment

[Scott Merrill]

Trevor Turk wrote:
>>Shouldn't we be making it very clear to people just
>>how their 
>>information can be used ? Or is it a case of saying
>>"It's GPL" over again ?
>>
> 
> 
> Podz, I didn't see any response to my comment about
> following Wikipedia's lead on this. What do you think
> about that? They use this stuff:
> 
> All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
> Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).
> 
> With these links:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

The GFDL, as used by Wikipedia, has some flaws.  Wikipedia's specific
use actually skirts the flaws (Wikipedia does not use invariant
sections); but the fact that license supports non-free elements is
problematic.

Further, as has been stated several times by several people,
re-licensing the current work will be a tremendous effort.  All
contributors must consent to the change.

If the GPL comment is not yet part of the new user stub, I will add it.
 That, at least, will make it clear to new participants what to expect.

Can someone with power please add the copyright link to the Codex
footer, so that every page is _clearly_ marked as GPL.

-- 
skippy at skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 9CFA4B35
506C F8BB 17AE 8A05 0B49  3544 476A 7DEC 9CFA 4B35