"Sam Liddicott" sam@liddicott.com writes:
I wonder that wikipedia wasn't just mentioned outright instead of a vaguer sounding clause that has an additional unknown quantity of leaks
I wondered this too. Maybe the answer is that it wouldn't be legally sound to do it that way. Or maybe it's that FSF is acknowledging that the Wikipedia Foundation is just one publisher of Wikipedia.
Many organisations publish modified versions of Wikipedia, so it's useful for them to be able to be able to move their version to cc-by-sa instead of having to drop their version, take a fresh copy of Wikipedia after the (possible) change of licence, and redo their changes. Just a guess.