[Foundation-l] Simple solution to the GFDL/CC-by-SA issue

[Lilewyn]

Silly question time. Just because a project, say, decides to migrate
from one license type to another, how can the project forcefully reassign
the older contributions under the new license? I'm familiar with the GFDL
and CC-BY-SA, but suppose someone (who is a stick-in-the-mud true
believer of the GFDL, for instance?) insists that their contributions are
only licensed under the GFDL and not a similar but less restrictive CC license?

What about all the contributors (aka copyright holders for Wikipedia's content)
who either disagree with such a move, or those who simply never give consent
to the changeover?

I'm hoping I'm missing something.

~ Kylu


>> As far as I can understand, the main problem we have with the GFDL is
 that
>> you have to include the entire text of the license if you want to use
>> something that is GFDL. Why not, in the next GFDL version, just
 remove the
>> clause that says you have to include the entire license, and just say
 it's
>> sufficient to state that the material is GFDL and credit the
 author(s) in
>> the appropriate manner? Wouldn't that - for the everyday person -
 accomplish
>> exactly the same as switching to CC-by-SA?
>A bit of a follow-up to this question: If the FSF modifies the GFDL to
>be compatible with CC-BY-SA, wouldn't that negate the need to migrate
>from one to the other? If the two licenses were fully-compatible to
>the point that migration was possible, wouldn't we already be getting
>everything we want out of the GFDL anyway? If the GFDL is modified to
>suit our needs as well as the CC-BY-SA does, why is there a need to
>migrate?




      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com