Robert Hornung writes:
What I'm talking about here is a simply
presumption that you don't
even
need to involve the FSF in this discussion, that that all you simply
need to perform is a mass license migration, ignoring the fact that
all
of the content is currently licensed under the GFDL.
You must have confused this conversation with some other
conversation. All of the talk of migration here is based in *actual,
ongoing discussions* among FSF, CC, and WMF. FSF would have to agree
to any version of the migration that we're talking about. Were you
unaware of these discussions?
What I expect that the FSF is going to do with the
GFDL is to work out
some legal language to make it work with Wikipedia a bit better.
Right -- and FSF is considering doing this by creating a CC-compatible
license.
I certainly don't
know how you could get GPL/CC-by-SA compatibility to work at all.
Both licenses would have to be revised in order to be harmonized,
everyone agrees.
I'll add here that I add contributions to
Wikimedia projects using my
actual given name, rather than using a psuedonym. One of the
reasons I
do this is explicitly because I do assert copyright over my
contributions, and to make the point that I can legally claim each
edit
I've performed.
If the migration happens, I will support 100 percent any request by
you to remove your content rather than have it be interpreted under a
new, harmonized GFDL/CC license.
--Mike