This is quite confusing. According to Wikipedia itself: > Most text in Wikipedia, excluding quotations, has been released under the Creative Commons Attributio

This is quite confusing. According to Wikipedia itself: > Most text in Wikipedia, excluding quotations, has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) and can therefore be reused only if you release any derived work under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License or the GFDL. This requires that, among other things, you attribute the authors and allow others to freely copy your work ... > Some text has been imported only under CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-compatible licenses and cannot be reused under GFDL; such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article that utilizes the text. All text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility. > If you are unwilling or unable to use the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License or the GNU Free Documentation License for your work, use of Wikipedia content is unauthorized. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia's_content_somewhere_else https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_...? So what exactly is Wikipedia offering here? They can't change the copyright. They still have to be attribued. And any deriavative using such content will still have to be released under the original viral license. When anyone can download the whole of Wikipedia, with adequate bandwidth and storage space, what advantages does this service really offer?