At 12:52 PM 8/10/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
1) I thought
that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
since they both required derivative works to be published under the
same license. Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
Indeed, they require both require new versions to be under the same
license as the original, and GFDL isn't the same as CC-BY-SA 3.0, thus
they are incompatible. In spirit, they're pretty similar, but they
have to exactly the same license (up to version numbers, at least) for
them to be interchangeable.
Thanks. So just to be clear, does that mean it's still technically
illegal to copy an article from Wikipedia and republish it under
CC-BY-SA? But once an FDL version is released that's compatible with
CC-BY-SA, it'll no longer be illegal?
(So, for people to start copying Wikipedia content to Knol,
presumably two things would have to happen -- Knol would have to
allow CC-BY-SA as a publishing option, and FDL would have to be
revised to be CC-BY-SA-compatible.)
Since it was announced in December 2007 that they planned to make the
FDL compatible with CC-BY-SA, does that mean they're still working on
it? Are their pro bono lawyers just really careful with things like
this, so they usually take a long time before coming out with a new
version of FDL that meets a specific goal?
-Bennett
bennett(a)peacefire.org
http://www.peacefire.org
(425) 497 9002