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

[John at Darkstar]

I'm against this move, not because GFDL is brilliant and CC-by-SA is
bad, but because I don't think it is neither legal nor legitimate.
Contributions are committed under a specific license and we have to
respect that. If not we ruin or own creditability.

John E

Andrew Whitworth skrev:
> 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
> press.
> 
> --Andrew Whitworth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>