[jacobolus]

Actually, no he doesn’t. Just linking back to the Wikipedia page is insufficient. To whit:

> You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. [...] You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. [...] If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must [...] keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing [...]

Mahalo has a link to the CC-BY license 3.0 (even though the link is oddly titled "CC License 2.0"). It is not acceptable to take content from wikipedia (licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0) modify it, and release it under a different license with conflicting terms.

This could be cleared up by unambiguously stating on the Mahalo pages that the content was available under the CC-BY-SA license 3.0, and providing a link directly to the terms of the license.

[shareme]

In fact as a wikipedia user, contributor, if I remember right the change form CC2 to CC3 at wikipedia was done to handle these sort of issues with credit not being given correctly..

I wonder does the DCMA takedown rules apply here?