Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between an
updated version of the
same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
different license.
Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to
define a license as being different if it changes something
you don't like.
In any case, the "or later" language has
only been included on the edit page
since March 2007, and even then it has been hidden in the fine print. You
claim that a company has a license to use a particular work under CC-BY-SA
3.0 just because the author hit "save page" on a website which years later
was altered to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions
under the terms of the
*GFDL*<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit#copyright>
*." "GNU Free Documentation
License<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Docu…se>,
Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no
Back-Cover Texts." and because GFDL 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site
may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site
at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for
relicensing."
Good luck with that.
For the record, the above is simple rubbish, and very
casuistically phrased to boot. The torturous logic can't
disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
and is not departing from that license against the prime
guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen