Its enough that someone believe the project used "GFDL 1.2 only" at the moment s/he contributed. Changing the license notice later isn't addressing the problem, it escalates the problem as it opens up for a discussion wetter the terms has changed substantially. Ie., has it given the user the possibility to opt out of the contract.
Personally I think it would be very wise to take one step back and look into the problems created _very_ carefully, and ask each project if they know about any problems that might arise.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_ GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any - the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed. So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only clause, but not of any projects.