[Foundation-l] GFDL CC announcement

Anthony 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
> appropriately.
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 mailing list