[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Marco Chiesa]

Andrew Whitworth ha scritto:
>
> I only used "pain in the ass" here because you had said it yourself in
> the message I replied to (although you more politely used the PITA
> acronym). I certainly am not implying that you are being  a PITA here.
> My point with the question was that the specific case of CC-BY-SA is a
> very nice analog for the GFDL in many respects. The Share-alike (SA)
> requirement of the license ensures that it is perpetually viral like
> the GFDL is, and the By-attribution (BY) aspect ensures that authors
> receive proper credit for their work. From a philosophical standpoint,
> this is almost identical to the GFDL. The benefit to using CC-BY-SA
> over the GFDL is that CC-BY-SA documents do not need to be accompanied
> by the whole text of the license, which is a gigantic benefit for
> short documents and images. This is why wikinews chose to switch to
> the CC-BY-SA, why commons prefers that license for it's images, and
> why many wikibookians are interested in per-book cross-licensing
> arrangements with this license.
>
>   
To be precise, Wikinews is licensed as cc-by, not cc-by-sa. I think the 
share-alike clause was dropped so that the articles could be reused nore 
freely, allowing someone else to copyright derivative works but above 
all using them everywhere, without the need of licensing something else 
with the same license. I don't know which license is freer, it's mostly 
a matter on how you look at it. It is very unfortunate that licenses 
that are so similar like GFDL and cc-by-sa are mutually incompatible.

Cruccone