Brad Patrick wrote in part:
Licensing others to publish, from the WMF perspective is not a big step, and is to WMF's great financial advantage.
snip
Robert, what would an efficient process look like to you, assuming the licensing component is a requirement? _______________________________________________
This is a poor set of assumptions and I think gives a contrary impression to what is intended.
The FDL is specifically designed to allow anyone to modify the material and republish it in any form that meets the attribution requirements and the requirement that the FDL propagate to the recipient. It specifically prohibits publishing in a form that does not include an FDL for the recipient to republish the "free" content at will.
This would seem to require that the content be kept separate from the Logos and Trademarks. Essentially we could sell the right to use the logo and trademark in advertising and promotion efforts but not for packaging with the FDL material unless the Trademark and Logo were also released under the FDL.
Assuming the content must be licensed from the WMF is a violation of the FDL and it could be argued an attempt to exploit the name brand recognition of the GNU FDL without meeting the responsibilities of its use.
It seems pretty easy to me to delineate that the trademarks and logos of the WMF may be licensed separately for use in advertising and sales promotion to any publishing effort using the FDL'ed material in ways mutually acceptable to the WMF and the publisher. Any customer who purchased the content could in turn modify the content and the attributions appropriately and then republish without the use of the WMF trademarks or logos.
Clearly any licensing arrangement for the trademarks or logos should include a right to review and cancel the use of the trademarks and logos in inappropriate fashions.
regards, lazyquasar