On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/16 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/16 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
later".
Try
again.
The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when?
It still doesn't. There is a place where it says "Version 1.2 or any
later
version published by the Free Software Foundation", which was added in
March
So it does say it... you are contradicting yourself.
It doesn't say "or later". It says "or [...] later [...]".
What did it say before March 2007? If it just said "GFDL" (which I think is likely), then that implicitly means "or later" (the license text makes that clear).
Immediately before March 2007 it said "GFDL". The full history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&act...
But CC-by-sa is not published by the FSF, and the word "published", according to Wiktionary, is in the past tense (and I have not clicked
submit
since Version 1.3 was released). So that argument fails in many ways, before even getting to the problems with GFDL 1.3 itself.
Obviously when reusing it you need to reuse it under a license that was published in the past, that's what is meant by the use of the past tense and I think that is perfectly clear to any reasonable person.
I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under a license that doesn't yet exist.
We know CC-BY-SA isn't an FSF license, the FSF have released a new version of GFDL allowing relicensing under CC-BY-SA (as you well know),
It allows an MMC Site (presumably, the WMF) to republish the work under CC-BY-SA. But the WMF has had its rights under the GFDL revoked, and the permission to republish doesn't extend to third parties anyway.
so what are you claiming, that the "or later" part is invalid or that a license which allows relicensing under a different license is invalid?
Both, and then some.