Received: from diver.doc.ic.ac.uk
by mail.metrostate.edu; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:41:40 -0500
Received: from seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk ([220.127.116.11] ident=root)
by diver.doc.ic.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #7)
for Axel.Boldt at obscured1.metrostate.edu; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:41:42 +0100
Received: (from dbh at localhost)
by seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA18948;
Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:41:39 +0100
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:41:39 +0100
Message-Id: <200108242241.XAA18948 at seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk>
X-Authentication-Warning: seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk: dbh set sender to dbh at obscured2.doc.ic.ac.uk using -f
From: Denis Howe <dbh at obscured3.doc.ic.ac.uk>
To: Axel Boldt <Axel.Boldt at obscured4.metrostate.edu>
In-reply-to: <200108211851.TAA27377 at seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk> (message from Axel
Boldt on Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:51:21 +0100)
Subject: Re: Incorporate Foldoc content into Wikipedia?
References: <200108211851.TAA27377 at seagull.doc.ic.ac.uk>
> your requirement of presenting your copyright notice with every
> entry would cause trouble. Would it be possible to get a version of
> FOLDOC under GNU FDL?
Your question has thrown me into a quandary. I had not seen Wikipedia
before. It is so close in spirit and function to the new FOLDOC
software I am working on that I am wondering whether I should continue
with FOLDOC at all or whether I shouldn't just redirect all effort to
Wikipedia. Can you think of any reason to keep it seperate?
In the short term, I am more than happy for you to add FOLDOC's
content to Wikipedia and hereby release it under GNU FDL.
Denis Howe <dbh at obscured5.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing