geni writes:
I don't think the problem is quite as
intractable as all that,
although I will grant it is a tricky problem. In my (possibly
misinformed) view, FSF is the custodian of the meaning and terms of
the GFDL, which allows for migration to later versions of GFDL, which
creates the possibility of an approved GFDL that is essentially an
equivalent to an updated CC-BY-SA license.
Not exactly. The FSF is unlikely to accept the loss of invariant
sections in the GFDL. Fortunately they do appear to be prepared to
accept the loss of the obvious invariant sections by shifting to the
GSFDL.
I think the FSF is perhaps even more flexible than this, at least
right now.
FSF is
currently in dialog
with Creative Commons about harmonizing GFDL with CC-BY-SA.
Do you have a source for this and is this dialog likely to produce a
result in the next year?
My sources include Larry Lessig and Richard Stallman. Do they count?
Some WMF Board members and I are also engaged in this discussion. I
think a result is possible in the next year. Whether it's likely or
not is hard to guess -- how to calculate the probability of a first-of-
its-kind event?
No. If the FSF shift to new licenses with better terms
we update with
no opt out clause (we've been doing this with CC for years) simply
because any re-user could update the work regardless of any attempted
opt out. At the present time it is not meaningfully possible to change
from the GFDL without action from the FSF.
This is what I'm saying too. I think FSF is inclined to take action in
concert with CC and WMF, if a consensus
--Mike