David Gerard wrote:
On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
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.
Chapter and verse please?
- d.
Again, perhaps this is reaction to reaction here. I know Mike was talking originally talking about the discussions he was having with the Free Software Foundation, but he drifted into other areas and talked about how the "community" could have some sort of discussion or vote and simply change the license... and waxed philosophically about how switching licenses wasn't that big of a deal. I agree.... under the limited confines that it use the "or later version" clause of the GFDL. But if that is the case, why the huge community discussion about moving on to the next version of the GFDL? And in this case, how is this any different from when Wikipedia moved from GFDL v. 1.0 to v.1.2 that we are using now? Other than perhaps the switch to v 1.2 happened some time ago and those involved in that decision aren't involved now.
Andrew explicitly was mentioning that most people could care less about the actual license. I was suggesting that while "most people" may not care... I do.
-- Robert Horning