[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[teun spaans]

i would support such a move

2007/11/22, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2007 5:59 PM, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, you can count me in an a GFDL ideologist if you want, and my
> >> contributions are under the terms of the GFDL.... and I intend to
> >> enforce that license on anything I've contributed to Wikimedia projects
> >> where the GFDL is the explicit default license of the project.
> >>
> >
> > If the next generation of GFDL were something along the lines of
> > CC-BY-SA-2.5, would that be an acceptable future evolution from your
> > perspective?
> >
> > From what I know (and I am not involved in the CC/FSF/WP discussions, so
> > that may not be worth much) the concerns boil down to:
> > 1. GFDL is viral (*-SA-* is as well)
> > 2. GFDL is large and clunky
> > 3. GFDL is insufficiently flexible about the license inclusion on
> > electronically redistributed content, from a modern perspective
> > 4. GFDL is structurally a poor match for oft-changed content (primary
> > authors, change logs/edit histories, etc... i.e any Wiki content).
> > 5. GFDL hasn't been translated.
> >
> >
> > I know quite a few people who care about the license being viral, who
> either
> > exclusively use CC-SA type licenses or GFDL.  I know others who would be
> > perfectly happy if that went away leaving us with more of a CC-BY type
> > license.  I personally am comfortable without viral, but I agree that
> > imposing that on people who implicitly or explicitly bought in with that
> > assumption as part of their internal prioritization of why to use / like
> > GFDL is likely unfair and controversial and drama-inducing.
> >
> >
> > I don't know of anyone to date who's objected to structural improvements
> > along the lines of fixing 2-5, or making those aspects more like
> CC-BY-SA
> > licenses.
> >
> > If you object to fixes to 2-5 then please explain your concerns in
> enough
> > detail that they can be carried to the update discussions which are
> going
> > on.
>
> I would second George here. I'd like to know what you would think of an
> evolution toward a cc-by-sa type of license.
>
> Just for the record, I would not be confortable at all leaving aside the
> viral aspect of our license. I consider it an essential element of what
> we are doing.
>
> ant
>
> Ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>