[Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?

[Kwan Ting Chan]

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:26 -0500, Anthony wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007 7:34 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/12/2007, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > The clauses are highly similar in nature. And they are ambiguous; it
> > > is not clear whether a photograph in an article is "separate and
> > > independent" from the article text. Again, a license that establishes
> > > clarity on this is needed; it doesn't help us to argue that the GFDL
> > > _is_ clear on this (it isn't, and our practice contradicts your
> > > interpretation), and it doesn't help us to attack Creative Commons
> > > because their interpretation of similar language is different from the
> > > FSF's.
> >
> > The problem is that that is the interpretation of the people who have
> > the power to change the license.
> 
> What if that power is removed?  What if a clause is put in the GFDL
> that the work can only be relicensed under a version approved by the
> FSF (and "or later" is taken out of that version)?

The comment was that the interpretation that's differing to the text is
by people from within their respective organisation. What you're saying
is no different to what is the case anyway. i.e. "or later" already mean
a later version approved by FSF for GFDL, or CC for the CC's licenses.

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20071202/368916c9/attachment.pgp