There's something I've never understood about our use of the GFDL. I
assume it is not the case that we are stuck with whatever version of
the GFDL was around in September 2001? There must be some kind of
provision in the text of the GFDL to automatically update the license
to the latest version, am I right? If this isn't the case then we're
as far from GFDL 1.3 as we are from CC-by-sa.
PS. For good measure I'm just about to multilicense :)
On 12/07/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
Oldak Quill schrieb:
Doing another multi-licensing drive is the next
best thing (though
time machines are alot more fun). I forget which user performed the
last multi-license drive (he/she used a bot to post on user's talk
pages, quite controvertial at the time). I, personally, would happily
multilicense into CC-by-sa for the sake of the project (I'm surprised
I haven't done it yet).
To be of any use, all authors of an article would have to multi-license
their work (I did;-) which is unlikely for most articles. Also, it seems
impossible to get an additional license from anons.
Jimbo said he's working with the FSF to make the GFDL compatible with CC
in the next version, and I trust that he will get that done. After all,
we're working towards the same goal; open source shouldn't have
incompatible proprietary licenses just because we can ;-)
Magnus
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)