Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a potential migration.
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.
Since that probably doesn't make much sense, let me rephrase it: In other words, if GFDL v1.3 were a letter-by-letter copy of CC-BY-SA, there wouldn't be any problems, definitely. But if we decided to switch from that GFDL v1.3to the identical CC-BY-SA, would there be any problems because we are not using a license with the name "GNU Free Documentation License" anymore? Is there any precedent for this occuring?
Titoxd.
On Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
John,
At some level the GFDL is about both a specific legal document (the license) and a larger philosophical movement (copyleft / free content).
From the beginning the FSF intended to preserve a capacity to update the license in order to further the copyleft agenda and deal with emerging legal and technical challenges.
While I agree that there could be serious problems if a future license deviates in significant ways from the current one, I don't think the current intent is a nefarious one. Rather they are looking to continue to advance the overall movement in a way that is "consistent with the spirit" of the current license.
Are you objecting in general about the concept of any possible change to the license or is there some specific about this change that you are worrying about?
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 13, 2007 3:46 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
I believe this license change is wrong, because it will break the contract with the contributors.
John E Blad User:jeblad
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter
Wikimedia
should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded. I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral, or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must be a little misinformed.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l