On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as opposed to "the exact same license".
the GFDL 1.2 only images People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness makes conventional commercial use tricky.
I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3. Whether or not we want to continue using "GFDL 1.2 only" content is a separate decision. Partially, this seems to be a debate for the Commons community about whether GFDL 1.2 only is "free enough", given the encumbrances you mention.
That's a scary comment, especially considering the comment above about CC-BY-SA 3.1 and the knowledge that you "initiated" the "Definition of Free Cultural Works".
Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition? http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't find anything about the current situation.