[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing

[Robert Horning]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm not suggesting here that some significant improvements to the GFDL
>> can't happen, but I can't even begin to imagine how Linus Torvalds (who
>> is one who has been very vocal about some of the changes to the GPL...
>> in part due to this issue) would react if the FSF went and simply
>> declared that some version of the Creative Commons license suite was in
>> fact "the next version of the GFDL".
>>     
>
>
> It's entirely unclear how that's relevant even by analogy, given that
> Torvalds' stuff is all GPLv2 and expressly not "or later."
>
>
>   
And you want to know why Torvalds is insisting on GPL v2 only?  This 
isn't accidental, and it does show some distrust with the FSF that they 
may not do the right thing in the future.  I'm not here insisting that 
the GFDL v. 1.2 is the one and only true version for now and eternity, 
but there is a trust issue here with the community of individuals who 
use this license that is not being addressed effectively.

>> GPL/GFDL compatibility is from my perspective something far more
>> important (and should be important to the FSF) than CC-by-SA/GFDL
>> compatibility, but that is another issue entirely.  I certainly don't
>> know how you could get GPL/CC-by-SA compatibility to work at all.
>>     
>
>
> Have you read GPLv3? And how it achieves compatibility with the Apache
> v2 licence and the AGPL.
>
> I would be amazed if the FSF were as careless as you hypothesise them to be.
>
>
> - d.
>
>   
If this happens where compatibility between the CC-by-SA license is the only consideration for a future license, I will have to consider the updated version of the GFDL to be an utter failure.

BTW, I haven't read the "official" GPLv3, but I have read draft versions of it from time to time.  And have watched some of the diffs between the various draft versions as well.  Some of this is to fix problems that RMS sees are an issue (such as the Tivo-related stuff, and the expansion of the patent issue section) and some is to adapt to the newer technology that wasn't originally anticipated when the GFDL was originally written... especially web services and software distribution models that don't use a traditional operating system like Unix or Windows.  I have also read some of the drafts of the updated GFDL, and so far I haven't seen anything so drastic to suggest that the GFDL is going to have a massive overhaul here, although there are some explicit concerns that have been addressed.  Full compatibility and harmonization with CC-by-SA or any other CC license seems like a good idea, but a dream, and I'll have to see it to believe it.  The GFDL fills a different niche in document licenses, and I have a hard time seeing RMS give up some of his pet ideas that went into the GFDL originally.

-- Robert Horning