[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Robert Horning]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> What has been suggested here by Mike and Andrew was
>> not a modification of the GFDL to an updated version, but suggesting
>> that some sort of community vote could happen here that would simply
>> ignore that the GFDL even exists, and simply replacing the default
>> license on all Wikimedia projects to something like CC-by-SA.
>>     
>
>
> Chapter and verse please?
>
>
> - d.
>
>   

Again, perhaps this is reaction to reaction here.  I know Mike was 
talking originally talking about the discussions he was having with the 
Free Software Foundation, but he drifted into other areas and talked 
about how the "community" could have some sort of discussion or vote and 
simply change the license... and waxed philosophically about how 
switching licenses wasn't that big of a deal.  I agree.... under the 
limited confines that it use the "or later version" clause of the GFDL.  
But if that is the case, why the huge community discussion about moving 
on to the next version of the GFDL?  And in this case, how is this any 
different from when Wikipedia moved from GFDL v. 1.0 to v.1.2 that we 
are using now?  Other than perhaps the switch to v 1.2 happened some 
time ago and those involved in that decision aren't involved now.

Andrew explicitly was mentioning that most people could care less about 
the actual license.  I was suggesting that while "most people" may not 
care... I do.

-- Robert Horning