[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Fri Nov 23 17:04:40 UTC 2007

On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:

> More to the point, I support many of the philosophical goals that RMS
> introduced when the GFDL was originally put together, as I have seen a
> very real need to have something like a document-oriented GPL-like
> license.  In this regard, I think many of the Creative Commons licenses
> miss the mark, and there is a strong non-commercial use only philosophy
> on the part of those working on the Creative Commons licenses.  Again,
> nearly every time I get into a discussion about CC licenses I get all
> kinds of people that criticize me because I'm not intimately familiar
> with all of the variations of the CC license suit...but I consider that
> to also be a major flaw in CC licenses.  There are so many that
> intelligent discussions about them are hard to make.  I know you have
> mentioned a specific license here, but the confusion is very real.
> Until recently, all the FSF had for licenses was the LGPL, GPL, and
> GFDL.... and the "domain" of each license was rather clear.

This doesn't really address the actual plan, which is that a future
CC-by-sa and a future GFDL will be effectively the same.

1. Does your objection to CC-by-sa hold if it happens to be called
"GNU Free Documentation License" and a valid license under the "or
later version" provision of Wikipedia's use of the GFDL? Because
that's what is being spoken of as a possibility, not any of the other
scenarios you allude to.
2. If your objection does hold, why? And, considering this would only
happen to contributions under an "or later", what do you think would
constitute a reasonable course of action?

I'm not trying to needle you, but the concerns in this thread have
largely been widely nonspecific,l science-fictional in their concerns
(as Mike put it) or addressing things that aren't planned at all.

- d.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list