[Foundation-l] Passed resolution (super short update)
thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 13:01:43 UTC 2007
On 15/12/2007, Titoxd @ Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a
> potential migration.
> 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?
It's a technical detail that I'm sure the FSF will take into account.
They would have to be extremely stupid to ignore such an obvious
point. What say we wait until we've seen the license before picking
holes in it?
More information about the foundation-l