[Commons-l] GFDL 1.3

[Robert Rohde]

For Commons the biggest question is probably what to do with GFDL
1.2-only.  The GFDL 1.3 is basically tracked to take things over to
CC-BY-SA (arguments about editing facilities aside).

However, this comes before there has been resolution of the strong vs.
weak copyleft problem.  The GFDL (as often advocated) is a strong
copyleft such that mixing GFDL images into a text document implies a
GFDL licensing requirement on the result, including the text.  The
CC-BY-SA is usually seen as a weak copyleft, such that the viral
provisions extend to new images only and not to accompanying text.

This difference, which frankly isn't very clear in either license text
but comes out of the license authors' apparent intent, raises the
question of whether GFDL is adequately equivalent to CC-BY-SA in its
treatment of image.  Personally, I would have liked to have seen the
talked about "strong" version of -SA materialize before confronted
with the migration question.

In the foundation-l thread, Erik suggests that GFDL 1.2-only images
should continue to be accepted until this issue is resolved, even
though that inevitably adds complexity down the line.

-Robert Rohde

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Eugene Zelenko
<eugene.zelenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> GFDL 1.3 was released today (http://www.fsf.org/news/fdl-1.3-pr.html).
> Any thought which version should be default, multiple versions, etc?
>
> Eugene.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>