[Foundation-l] GFDL CC announcement

[Andrew Whitworth]

> 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.

Well, if the two licenses provide exactly the same protections for
content creator and content consumer, and if the two licenses provide
the same rights and responsibilities to both parties, with no
additions/alterations, then the exact wording of the two licenses is
inconsequential. That we we can say that the rights, permissions, and
responsibilities are identical, that the spirit of the two are
identical, and that the two licenses can be used interchangably.

In other words, by properly modifying the licenses, derivative works
can be both "exactly CC-BY-SA" and "exactly GFDL" at the same time.

--Andrew Whitworth