Quote from: theymos on December 17, 2010, 06:55:39 AM

I desire attribution for my contributions. WTFPL, at least, seems to suggest that I would be OK with people plagiarizing, which I am not. Copyright should be abolished, of course, but I don't want to encourage people to take my work without attribution.

There are probably legal problems with it. Compare it with the similar CC0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
One sentence is not going to cover all of the legal issues. Potentially someone could sue us for using our own stuff.

WTFPL is less restrictive than CC-A, so legally copying material from the Bitcoin wiki would require you to get permission from all page authors.

I prefer CC-A -- including a link back to the page is not a huge legal burden, and it clearly indicates that plagiarism is not acceptable. No one's going to sue anyone, anyway. I wouldn't mind CC0 or any of the more restrictive CC licenses.

CC-by makes sense for many people, I see how this can be interesting.

Quote from: kiba on December 17, 2010, 06:39:55 AM

The intention of WTFPL is to show that you don't care a shit about copyright laws. At least that's my interpretation.

I don't even care about attribution. That why I asked MT to use WTFPL rather than anything else.

I guess you won't care if we thank you for your work. Anyway this whole license issue is a problem to copy content from the current wiki, so I believe the switch to CC-by-3.0 is pretty much obvious. If anyone has an objection, please state it here.