[Foundation-l] Passed resolution (super short update)

Andrew Whitworth wknight8111 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 01:40:49 UTC 2007

On Dec 12, 2007 8:02 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:
> I would very much like to see a license that is better suited to our
> actual needs, but I don't think it is very wise to break the rules, even
> if everyone agrees that it is a good thing to do.
> We do not follow GFDL for the moment, and actually points to an internal
> technical feature as an easy way out. How can we ask others to respect
> the license when we don't follow it? And even worse, when we try to
> persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?

It has nothing to do with breaking the license whatsoever. Any plans
to migrate to a different license (and they are just distant plans
still) will be completely legal and legitimate. The GFDL is about
promoting free content, not acting as an immutable anchor that drags
us down because it was the only option available when we started this
whole mess. If the GFDL can provide an "option" for works that aren't
appropriate for the GFDL to be transmuted to a better alternative with
the same spirit, that's in the best interests of WMF, FSF, and free
content in general. Keep in mind that the FSF doesnt want the GFDL to
go down in history as "the license that ruined wikipedia". That's bad

--Andrew Whitworth

More information about the foundation-l mailing list