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

Andrew Whitworth wknight8111 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 19:34:42 UTC 2007

> 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.

This is the only part of a potential migration that I find
problematic, as well. Of course, until we see the new licenses, we
can't call it one way or the other.

The GFDL does say:

"If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this
License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or
of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the
Free Software Foundation."

The specific inclusion of the FSF in the grandfathering clause strikes
me as an indication that part of the license terms is the fact that
the FSF is solely responsible for maintaining the license under which
the material is released. Transferring to a different FSF license,
regardless of the specific name of the license (GFDL V1.3, GNU-Wiki
License, GNU-CC-BY-SA, whatever) is inconsequential. However, I wonder
if this grandfathering clause will be voided if we attempt to transfer
to a license maintained by a different organization.

This is all speculation, of course. I personally don't *think* there
is going to be much of a problem, but I also wouldnt be surprised if a
few hard-asses try raise an issue just to prove an ideological point.

--Andrew Whitworth

More information about the foundation-l mailing list