If I recall correctly, we're talking about people who have licensed
their contributions under GDFL version something.something /or later/ -
the "or later" bit is what lets us do this kind of thing without the
insanity of tracking down each and every person and getting their
permission.
-Mike
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:20:35 +0000,
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org said:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>:
Does this mean that no attention was given to the
fact that some users
of the FDL find the terms of CC-By-SA 3.0 unacceptable and have
deliberately not licensed their works under that license?
Which terms are you referring to here, Gregory?
Why debate the license terms here and now?
There have been a number of discussions on a number of occasions.
There are people who have explicitly rejected cc-by-sa-3.0 for their
own works for a multitude of reasons, for both personal and public
interest reasons. The FDL and CC-By-SA licenses are not precisely
isomorphic. There exist many images on commons explicitly noted that
they are only licensed under the terms of the FDL-1.2. I do not
believe these facts are in dispute.
Since there exist people who have consciously rejected the CC-By-SA
3.0, for whatever reason, the prospect of simply declaring their works
to be under license terms that have explicitly rejected would appear
to be both legally and ethically suspect. It does not sound like any
consideration has been given to this subject, which is most
disappointing considering the amount of time which has passed and the
number of times this concern has been raised.
--
Mike.lifeguard
mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm