Re: [Commons-l] GFDL 1.3

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: