[Foundation-l] Wikiversity license

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Wed Aug 16 15:20:33 UTC 2006

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
> "I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen,
> Wikimania 2006

Tisk tisk. This is really out of context.

The invariant sections part of the GFDL sucks... but we explicitly
reject using that part of the license. In practice none of the clearly
negative parts of the license impact us...

The requirement to include the license itself is still debatable, and
for a text book oriented project I'd argue that a requirement to
include the license text is beneficial.

GFDL also remains the only widely used open-content license with a
clear intention of dealing with DRM. The language is not ideal, but I
think for textbooks the importance of DRM protection can not be

And as Erik pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the easy ability to
take from Wikipedia is hard to argue against...

More information about the foundation-l mailing list