[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert Rohde wrote:
>> I have no problem with commercial reuse.  In a way it seems to me that
>> NC licences are counterproductive.  We want the viral nature of the
>> licence to infect the commercial sites.
>>     
> Actually, I would be careful about this language.  I don't want them
> "infected".  If they choose to embrace GFDL / CC-SA of their own free will,
> then fine.  But free content shouldn't be a disease that ambushes
> unsuspecting publishers.  To that end, being very clear about the
> implications of these licenses is important.
>
> Frankly calling it "free content" actually feels like a misnomer when using
> this "free" material comes with a heavy burden that can hypothetical deprive
> people of income from their own work.
There are good viruses and bad viruses.  Something under a GFDL needs to 
be marked as such, and requires at least that the licensing be noted.  
In theory then, a person knows about the licence before he uses the 
material.  If he doesn't want his writing infected, he doesn't use it.  
As for unsuspecting publishers, it should be a matter of the contract 
between the publisher and author whether or not GFDL material is used.  
If the author breaches the contract it needs to be worked out between 
him and the publisher.

Maybe the whole idea of "income from one's own work" needs to be 
redefined.  When it goes 70 years beyond one's death it's no longer a 
question of one's own benefit, or the benefit of one's own dependent 
children in the case of an early death.  25 years after death would be 
enough for that.  Most writing has outlived its shelf life long before 
that.  The tiny residual potential probably costs more to administer 
than it's worth. 

Ec