(even Wikipedia doesn't technically comply with that part, it's a link) Technically, articles copied here from Wikimedia projects are in violation of that unless the list of contributors is grabbed from their edit history and added here too (perhaps as a comment). In practice, Wikimedia are happy with a link back to them and the original article, but it's understood that they're playing loose with their own license terms by doing that (this business where they have trouble following the terms of their own license is the main reason there are sometimes regrets about choosing it). Another problem with GFDL material is that it can't be incorporated into CC works unless all authors involved in that part of the work also agree to a CC-compatible license (which is why I do that). At this writing, the iBook article at guides.macrumors.com is violating that license (and I'll fix that, since I'm bringing it up); it's a pain.
Yes, terms like "Unless otherwise indicated, all text is available under the terms of $WHATEVER_LICENSE." are fine. Just as long as we're good about crediting leeched material, people who want to reuse will know where they stand. There is already a slew of fair-use images in there, so there's no point in trying to be purist about One True License.arn said:
iMeowbot said:Yes, terms like "Unless otherwise indicated, all text is available under the terms of $WHATEVER_LICENSE." are fine. Just as long as we're good about crediting leeched material, people who want to reuse will know where they stand. There is already a slew of fair-use images in there, so there's no point in trying to be purist about One True License.
Thanks for the note about the status flag; I was afraid I broke something again