[Foundation-l] Passed resolution (super short update)
Titoxd @ Wikimedia
titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 06:06:07 UTC 2007
Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a
Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any
modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even
if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does
that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia
under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we
agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
Since that probably doesn't make much sense, let me rephrase it: In other
words, if GFDL v1.3 were a letter-by-letter copy of CC-BY-SA, there wouldn't
be any problems, definitely. But if we decided to switch from that
GFDL v1.3to the identical CC-BY-SA, would there be any problems
because we are not
using a license with the name "GNU Free Documentation License" anymore? Is
there any precedent for this occuring?
On Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> At some level the GFDL is about both a specific legal document (the
> and a larger philosophical movement (copyleft / free content).
> From the beginning the FSF intended to preserve a capacity to update the
> license in order to further the copyleft agenda and deal with emerging
> and technical challenges.
> While I agree that there could be serious problems if a future license
> deviates in significant ways from the current one, I don't think the
> intent is a nefarious one. Rather they are looking to continue to advance
> the overall movement in a way that is "consistent with the spirit" of the
> current license.
> Are you objecting in general about the concept of any possible change to
> license or is there some specific about this change that you are worrying
> -Robert Rohde
> On Dec 13, 2007 3:46 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:
> > Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know
> > why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own
> > opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right
> > without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
> > I believe this license change is wrong, because it will break the
> > contract with the contributors.
> > John E Blad
> > User:jeblad
> > Andrew Whitworth skrev:
> > > On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:
> > >> I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter
> > >> should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the
> > >> contributors.
> > >
> > > Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or
> > > that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will
> > > result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded.
> > > I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that
> > > the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral,
> > > or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
> > >
> > >> I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less
> > >> than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
> > >
> > > Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must
> > > be a little misinformed.
> > >
> > > --Andrew Whitworth
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l