2005/5/22, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
I noticed that clause with some concern quite
some time ago, though I
didn't comment on it. Article 10 of the licence deals with future
revisions, and at first glance appears to deal with the point.
Nevertheless, even there I am not completely comfortable with it. The
article appears to give people a choice about which version whould
apply. That's fine when you're dealing with the handful of articles
that a person might put onto his personal website, but it creates
potential complications when many users are involved. A person who
contributes today may not like a GFDL version that appears five years
later when he (or his heirs) are no longer reachable.
But just because it is avaliable under the next version, doesnt mean
it stops being avaliable under the older one. In other words, if i
license something under GFDL 1.0, and then in GFDL 2.0 they say
no-comercial use (which they wont, but that is not the point), it is
still avaliable under 1.0 so that it will forever be able to be used
for commerical purposes. In other words, only changes to make the
information more free would have a real effect.
The point is that the clause is like signing a blank cheque. You have
no control over the way it will be changed in the future. If you don't
opt out of a future change with an explicit statement you will be
assumed to have implicitly agreed to the change.
Ec