2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
where I am the last author or for historical revisions.
Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every
modified version is first distributed by someone other than the
foundation. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that
rather than a modified version.
I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over
CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've
implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0.
That doesn't even make sense
Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0.
You've never demonstrated an ability to understand any free license or
copyright law in general so that doesn't greatly concern me.
It isn't clear what it means.
There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears
a section name and one reference to the section.
There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would
be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use
the relevant clause.
seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require "a link" to
such attribution, and that's even worse.
That is actually a step up from what the GFDL requires (and remember
the GFDL has no problems in principle with stuff being provided by
link see the whole transparent copy stuff)
And then, topping it off, there
are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a
URL as "attribution". And Creative Commons is working closely with these
people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance
CC-BY-SA 4.0 will.
I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they
are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as
I don't know if these interpretations are correct
or not. But I'd rather
not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC
image on a postcard. GFDL not so much.
You want compatibility, why not add a clause to
CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people
relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just
as well. Obviously you think there are some "onerous requirements" in the
GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these
requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the
GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all?
Because switching because allowing the shift to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is their
way of removing them. About the only remotely significant stuff still
under the GFDL once the switch is over will be software manuals for
which the GFDL is merely a tolerably bad license.