New subject: [Foundation-l] Simple solution to the GFDL/CC-by-SA issue

5 Dec 2007

Silly question time. Just because a project, say, decides to migrate
from one license type to another, how can the project forcefully reassign
the older contributions under the new license? I'm familiar with the GFDL
and CC-BY-SA, but suppose someone (who is a stick-in-the-mud true
believer of the GFDL, for instance?) insists that their contributions are
only licensed under the GFDL and not a similar but less restrictive CC license?

What about all the contributors (aka copyright holders for Wikipedia's content)
who either disagree with such a move, or those who simply never give consent
to the changeover?

I'm hoping I'm missing something.

~ Kylu

...
 > As far as I can understand, the main problem we
have with the GFDL is  that
...
 > you have to include the entire text of the license
if you want to use
> something that is GFDL. Why not, in the next GFDL version, just  remove the
...
 > clause that says you have to include the entire
license, and just say  it's
...
 > sufficient to state that the material is GFDL and
credit the  author(s) in
...
 > the appropriate manner? Wouldn't that - for
the everyday person -  accomplish
...
   exactly the
same as switching to CC-by-SA? A bit of a follow-up to this question: If the FSF
modifies the GFDL to
be compatible with CC-BY-SA, wouldn't that negate the need to migrate
from one to the other? If the two licenses were fully-compatible to
the point that migration was possible, wouldn't we already be getting
everything we want out of the GFDL anyway? If the GFDL is modified to
suit our needs as well as the CC-BY-SA does, why is there a need to
migrate? 

      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers
and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

Re: [Foundation-l] Simple solution to the GFDL/CC-by-SA issue