[Foundation-l] GFDL CC announcement
wikimail at inbox.org
Sat Dec 1 19:36:55 UTC 2007
On Dec 1, 2007 2:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, for one thing, obviously any work which uses Cover Texts,
> > Invariant Sections, Acknowledgements, Dedications, or Endorsements
> > probably wouldn't like being switched to CC-BY-SA.
> That's where the difference between "the same" and "compatible with"
> comes in. Obviously, the GFDL won't be identical to CC-BY-SA for the
> reasons you give (unless, of course, such things are added to
> CC-BY-SA), but the two licenses can still be compatible when used
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Traditionally, at least, in
order for two copyleft licenses to be compatible, they have to be
identical. Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA have to be CC-BY-SA. Not
"compatible with" CC-BY-SA, but exactly CC-BY-SA. Any derivatives of
GFDL have to be GFDL. Not "compatible with" GFDL, but exactly GFDL.
In theory I guess it'd be possible to modify CC-BY-SA and the GFDL to
say that derivatives have to be CC-BY-SA or GFDL, but to do that,
without eliminating Invariant Sections from the GFDL, for example,
would mean that I could add Invariant Sections to a CC-BY-SA work
(something which I certainly do not want to allow when I license
something under CC-BY-SA). Invariant Sections alone make CC-BY-SA and
the GFDL very very different in spirit. So unless you want to let
people add invariant sections to a work under CC-BY-SA (oh God please
no) or take them away from the GFDL (wouldn't be fair to people who
use them), you can't directly make the licenses compatible.
More information about the foundation-l