On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Surely there is a significant difference between
an updated version of
the
same license, and a license which says the work
can be relicensed under a
different license.
Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to
define a license as being different if it changes something
you don't like.
In this context, for a license to be the "same license" as the GFDL, it
would need to be called "GFDL X.Y" and be published by the FSF.
In any case, the "or later" language has
only been included on the edit
page
since March 2007, and even then it has been
hidden in the fine print.
You
claim that a company has a license to use a
particular work under
CC-BY-SA
3.0 just because the author hit "save
page" on a website which years
later
was altered to say "You irrevocably agree to
release your contributions
under the terms of the
*GFDL*<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit#co…
*." "GNU Free Documentation
License<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L…
,
Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover
Texts, and with no
Back-Cover Texts." and because GFDL 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site
may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same
site
at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the
MMC is eligible for
relicensing."
Good luck with that.
For the record, the above is simple rubbish, and very
casuistically phrased to boot.
Feel free to rephrase it. I admit it's a strawman, but I did attempt to
phrase it as favorably as possible while remaining accurate. Of course, I'm
biased, which is why I invited anyone else to attempt to connect the dots on
their own.
If you claim to have a license to use my content under CC-BY-SA, some simple
questions you should be able to answer include "who granted that license to
you" and "when did they do it".
The torturous logic can't
disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
and is not departing from that license against the prime
guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.
Huh?