--- Karl Wick karlwick@yahoo.com wrote:
Please show me ANY evidence that RMS and the FSF will be flexible about changing their licensing terms how we want them.
Otherwise lets get new modules released in some way that is *not* exclusively GNU FDL.
AFAICT, The FSF has no discression over how we use the licence unless they sue us. And if we , for example, switch wikipedia to the Creative Commons, then nothing bad can happen without lawsuit for something like which licence's text was there, which is extremely unlikely IMO. But many wikipedians think it is unethical to not follow the GNU FDL.
Here's my impression of how the license works. Things submitted to Wikipedia (and wikibooks) are still owned by the people who submit them, Wikipedia is just licensed to use it under the GNU FDL. If all authors of a particular page (including anons) agree to relicense the page under, say, the Creative Commons Share-Alike, the page may be relicenced. But that would be stupid and pointless. However, it would be very useful in wikibooks, as a textbook module might, for example, use some creative-commons sharealike licenced things. I'm not sure, but I think that we can even say "Above this line was licenced under the GNU FDL, below this line is licenced under the Creative Commons Sharealike." LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com