On 02/03/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
"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.
I'm not sure about that.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html - section ten, first paragraph
The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
I think you could make a case, based on the "similar in spirit" clause, that this hypothetical version 1.3 was *not* a revised version of the GFDL, but rather a new license which shared a name with the old one - it didn't comply with the terms set out in earlier versions to define what a later revision would consist of.
I wouldn't want to pay for your lawyers, mind, but it's not a frivolous argument.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk