[Foundation-l] Passed resolution (super short update)
geniice at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 01:17:28 UTC 2007
On 13/12/2007, 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.
No one is suggesting breaking the rules
> We do not follow GFDL for the moment,
For the most part we do.
> 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?
We do follow it. Individual users break it from time to time.
> And even worse, when we try to
> persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?
The above is internally inconstant.
> The right thing to do is probably to start a dual licensing scheme,
> allow people to dual license old contributions, and then at some point
> in the future rewrite the remaining contributions.
Been tried by rambot way back.
> GFDL is for all practical purposes one of our main building structures,
> do not mess with that. People will argue that there are second agendas,
> and you simply do not want that.
We cannot change the terms of the GFDL. The FSF can (just as CC can
and fairly regularly does change the CC licenses and the FSF updated
the GPL). If you have a problem with this you may wish to avoid
releasing material under the GFDL.
More information about the foundation-l