[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Florence Devouard]

George Herbert wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007 5:59 PM, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> 
>> BTW, you can count me in an a GFDL ideologist if you want, and my
>> contributions are under the terms of the GFDL.... and I intend to
>> enforce that license on anything I've contributed to Wikimedia projects
>> where the GFDL is the explicit default license of the project.
>>
> 
> If the next generation of GFDL were something along the lines of
> CC-BY-SA-2.5, would that be an acceptable future evolution from your
> perspective?
> 
> From what I know (and I am not involved in the CC/FSF/WP discussions, so
> that may not be worth much) the concerns boil down to:
> 1. GFDL is viral (*-SA-* is as well)
> 2. GFDL is large and clunky
> 3. GFDL is insufficiently flexible about the license inclusion on
> electronically redistributed content, from a modern perspective
> 4. GFDL is structurally a poor match for oft-changed content (primary
> authors, change logs/edit histories, etc... i.e any Wiki content).
> 5. GFDL hasn't been translated.
> 
> 
> I know quite a few people who care about the license being viral, who either
> exclusively use CC-SA type licenses or GFDL.  I know others who would be
> perfectly happy if that went away leaving us with more of a CC-BY type
> license.  I personally am comfortable without viral, but I agree that
> imposing that on people who implicitly or explicitly bought in with that
> assumption as part of their internal prioritization of why to use / like
> GFDL is likely unfair and controversial and drama-inducing.
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone to date who's objected to structural improvements
> along the lines of fixing 2-5, or making those aspects more like CC-BY-SA
> licenses.
> 
> If you object to fixes to 2-5 then please explain your concerns in enough
> detail that they can be carried to the update discussions which are going
> on.

I would second George here. I'd like to know what you would think of an 
evolution toward a cc-by-sa type of license.

Just for the record, I would not be confortable at all leaving aside the 
viral aspect of our license. I consider it an essential element of what 
we are doing.

ant

Ant