Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Either follow the terms of the GFDL or don't. If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not give permission to use this content under any other license.
-- Robert Horning
Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points, what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides wanting to be a pain in the ass?
--Andrew Whitworth
Let me second that request (without the part about the pain in the ass tough). I really would like to understand better why you would consider a cc-by-sa license not acceptable.
Ant