Robert Hornung writes:
Not to be over critical here, but you weren't
very clear in the
was responding to that this was a discussion strictly about the GFDL.
Well, I wouldn't say that was an accurate statement either. What we
have is three sets of stakeholders -- FSF, CC, and WMF -- trying to
come up with harmonized license that would qualify as (a) a revision
of GFDL and also as (b) a revision of CC-BY-SA that would (c)
facilitate the sharing of, inter alia, Wikipedia content.
At least you have a chance here, Mike, to respond to
saying and trying to diffuse this, instead of trying to stop a
story that says "Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia
Foundation, suggests that Wikipedia may not be using the GFDL any
more". Gee, that would be a horrible headline, and one that I hope
doesn't get written.
We've been saying from the beginning that we've been in discussions
with FSF about a revised license. The only relevant revisions FSF has
authority to approve are revisions of GFDL. Now, this topic is
certainly complex, but I don't think this particular point is. I
believe that most people who have been following the topic have
understood this point, especially given my statements early on that
FSF must approve any revised license that we've been talking about.
Slashdot doesn't concern me that much, since if they're linking to a
journal article, it means we'll have been talking to a journalist who,
presumably, will talk to sources at FSF as well.
Mind you, I'm glad that you are involved with the
Foundation in terms of trying to address problems that Wikipedia users
(and other Wikimedia users) are having with the GFDL.
Thanks. I think the problem here has not been how I've been
representing the issue so much as how it has been reinterpreted by
some I would like to call "the GFDL conservatives," who believe that
any discussions that include working with Creative Commons are
inherently suspect, since not all CC licenses are copyleft the way
GFDL is. But CC's goal was less to create a total copyleft regime in
all instances than it was to give authors a new framework in which to
decide more self-consciously which rights they want to free up and
which rights they want to retain. I think of CC as a descriptive
language limited to rights in copyright. What we're discussing is how
to (a) evolve GFDL to better handle wiki content, and (b) how to
express that evolved GFDL in CC terms.
Keep up the good work, and I hope that you can help
positive difference here.
Thanks. Me too.