On Nov 21, 2007 5:59 PM, Robert Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
BTW, you can count me in an a GFDL ideologist if you
want, and my
contributions are under the terms of the GFDL.... and I intend to
enforce that license on anything I've contributed to Wikimedia projects
where the GFDL is the explicit default license of the project.
If the next generation of GFDL were something along the lines of
CC-BY-SA-2.5, would that be an acceptable future evolution from your
perspective?
From what I know (and I am not involved in the
CC/FSF/WP discussions, so
that may not be worth much) the concerns boil down to:
1. GFDL is viral (*-SA-* is as well)
2. GFDL is large and clunky
3. GFDL is insufficiently flexible about the license inclusion on
electronically redistributed content, from a modern perspective
4. GFDL is structurally a poor match for oft-changed content (primary
authors, change logs/edit histories, etc... i.e any Wiki content).
5. GFDL hasn't been translated.
I know quite a few people who care about the license being viral, who either
exclusively use CC-SA type licenses or GFDL. I know others who would be
perfectly happy if that went away leaving us with more of a CC-BY type
license. I personally am comfortable without viral, but I agree that
imposing that on people who implicitly or explicitly bought in with that
assumption as part of their internal prioritization of why to use / like
GFDL is likely unfair and controversial and drama-inducing.
I don't know of anyone to date who's objected to structural improvements
along the lines of fixing 2-5, or making those aspects more like CC-BY-SA
licenses.
If you object to fixes to 2-5 then please explain your concerns in enough
detail that they can be carried to the update discussions which are going
on.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com