[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
mnemonic at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 21:00:38 UTC 2007
>> I don't think the problem is quite as intractable as all that,
>> although I will grant it is a tricky problem. In my (possibly
>> misinformed) view, FSF is the custodian of the meaning and terms of
>> the GFDL, which allows for migration to later versions of GFDL, which
>> creates the possibility of an approved GFDL that is essentially an
>> equivalent to an updated CC-BY-SA license.
> Not exactly. The FSF is unlikely to accept the loss of invariant
> sections in the GFDL. Fortunately they do appear to be prepared to
> accept the loss of the obvious invariant sections by shifting to the
I think the FSF is perhaps even more flexible than this, at least
>> FSF is currently in dialog
>> with Creative Commons about harmonizing GFDL with CC-BY-SA.
> Do you have a source for this and is this dialog likely to produce a
> result in the next year?
My sources include Larry Lessig and Richard Stallman. Do they count?
Some WMF Board members and I are also engaged in this discussion. I
think a result is possible in the next year. Whether it's likely or
not is hard to guess -- how to calculate the probability of a first-of-
> No. If the FSF shift to new licenses with better terms we update with
> no opt out clause (we've been doing this with CC for years) simply
> because any re-user could update the work regardless of any attempted
> opt out. At the present time it is not meaningfully possible to change
> from the GFDL without action from the FSF.
This is what I'm saying too. I think FSF is inclined to take action in
concert with CC and WMF, if a consensus
More information about the foundation-l