Jimbo wrote:
Anything released under FDL 1.x or 2.0 with no invariant sections, no Front-Cover texts, and no Back-Cover texts can be distributed under the terms of LFDL 2.0 *or* FDL 2.0. Anything release under FDL 1.x with invariant sections can be released under FDL 2.0.
And then LFDL can be simpler and worded carefully so as to maximize compatibility with CC SA.
Hm. I think you may be on to something here that we could all agree with; I get the simplicity and internal copy/paste harmony within Wikimedia that I want, and Toby et al get to redistribute any Wikimedia material under the CC Att/SA.
But will it work? Could we wholesale relicense all Wikimedia content under the LFDL if FDL 2.0 said we could?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
[This is going both to the list and directly to mav.]
Mav wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Anything released under FDL 1.x or 2.0 with no invariant sections, no Front-Cover texts, and no Back-Cover texts can be distributed under the terms of LFDL 2.0 *or* FDL 2.0. Anything released under FDL 1.x with invariant sections can be released under FDL 2.0.
And then LFDL can be simpler and worded carefully so as to maximize compatibility with CC SA.
Hm. I think you may be on to something here that we could all agree with; I get the simplicity and internal copy/paste harmony within Wikimedia that I want, and Toby et al get to redistribute any Wikimedia material under the CC Att/SA.
Wait, *I* am the leader of the opposition? I thought that /Karl/ was! ^_^
But will it work? Could we wholesale relicense all Wikimedia content under the LFDL if FDL 2.0 said we could?
Surely we can do that if the FDL says that we can; what rules are those besides what the FDL says? We have correctly referred to "any later version", after all. The question is: Can we get the FDL to say that? I certainly hope so!
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org