Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
This is the only part of a potential migration that I find problematic, as well. Of course, until we see the new licenses, we can't call it one way or the other.
The GFDL does say:
"If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation."
The specific inclusion of the FSF in the grandfathering clause strikes me as an indication that part of the license terms is the fact that the FSF is solely responsible for maintaining the license under which the material is released. Transferring to a different FSF license, regardless of the specific name of the license (GFDL V1.3, GNU-Wiki License, GNU-CC-BY-SA, whatever) is inconsequential. However, I wonder if this grandfathering clause will be voided if we attempt to transfer to a license maintained by a different organization.
This is all speculation, of course. I personally don't *think* there is going to be much of a problem, but I also wouldnt be surprised if a few hard-asses try raise an issue just to prove an ideological point.
--Andrew Whitworth