On 30/12/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
The real solution would be to have the FSF change the
GFDL to be
compatable with the GPL (and the other way too!), but this is the wrong
mailing list to make such a gripe. Frankly I consider this ought to be
embarassing to the FSF. I know it has been brought up numerous times in
the various discussion forums of the FSF and is not a new issue.
The GFDL ought to be embarrassing to the FSF, but anyway.
Another work-around in terms of at least having a
common repository for
something like a Wikibook about C++ programming might be at least having
an independent Wikimedia project that has its content available under
licensing terms compatable with the GFDL and GPL (perhaps
dual-licensed?).
An obvious workaround for now is for authors to explicitly
dual-licence their code contributions to the book as GFDL and GPL.
There's no way to enforce that for future contributors to that book,
though. But it should be easy enough to make it WikiBooks recommended
best practice.
In other words, I think there is a practical siter
project supporting
role that such a Wikimedia project of software source code examples
could provide and be a valuable addition to the Wikimedia family of
sister projects. It shouldn't be dismissed completely.
Indeed - it's something that would be useful as a service project as
well. Dual license everything on it under GFDL (for reusability in the
rest of Wikimedia text) plus at least one FSF-approved Free Software
license, DFSG-approved Free license or OSI-approved Open Source
license. (I say "or" to catch stuff like the Netscape Public License,
which is FSF-free but not OSI-open, and I believe there's at least one
licence which is OSI-open but not FSF-free. And then there's the GFDL,
which isn't DFSG-free.)
[DFSG = Debian Free Software Guidelines, which OSI's requirements are based on]
- d.