Robert Hornung writes:
What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was
not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting
that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply
ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default
license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
This suggestion is wholly incorrect. What we have been talking about
is working with FSF to develop an update of GFDL that better
accommodates wikis and that also is harmonized with the terms of a
revised versino of CC-BY-SA.
Note, by the way, that criticisms of other CC licenses generally don't
tell us much about about possible objections to CC-BY-SA specifically.
I think CC-BY-SA is already very close to GFDL in terms of how it
functions.
I have not agreed to have my contributions released
under any other
license other than the GFDL, and that is all I'm asserting. The flame
is coming from the presumption that I am insisting on maintaining
everything under the terms of the GFDL v 1.2, and that is not what I'm
saying. I'm simply declaring in a public forum that I am asserting my
copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects, and insisting
that
they remain under the terms of the GFDL.... nothing more or less than
simply this. The rest is reaction to this bold statement, as if the
GFDL doesn't matter at all.
I think because of your incorrect statement of the issue (see above),
what you say in this paragraph is pretty much irrelevant. We're
talking about a revision of GFDL, not an abandonment of it.
--Mike