You can't suddenly change the agreement by which things were licensed.
If we were to change the GFDL to become PD, lots of people will want to
retract edits it applies to, because that's not what they agreed to when
they edited it at the time.
Mgm
On 3/2/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Fastfission wrote:
It is just a thought I had -- the only one I
could come up with which
seems really plausible, aside from the possibility of the FSF being
convinced to make updates to the GFDL (which I suspect they would be
very dubious about, especially if the edits were primarily to benefit
Wikipedia).
A revised version of the GFDL wouldn't help us because Wikipedia
would still be licensed under the old version.
Wikipedia is licensed under all versions of the GFDL starting with
version 1.2. From [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute, and/or modify this
document under the Gnu Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
This means that if GFDL 2.0 comes out as a verbatim copy of the
Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution Share-Alike license, then all of
Wikipedia is effectively dual-licensed under GFDL 1.2 and CC-BY-SA
2.5, and anyone re-using the content can pick whichever license they
want.
--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l