[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
mnemonic at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 03:24:50 UTC 2007
Robert Hornung writes:
> 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.
This suggestion is wholly incorrect. What we have been talking about
is working with FSF to develop an update of GFDL that better
accommodates wikis and that also is harmonized with the terms of a
revised versino of CC-BY-SA.
Note, by the way, that criticisms of other CC licenses generally don't
tell us much about about possible objections to CC-BY-SA specifically.
I think CC-BY-SA is already very close to GFDL in terms of how it
> I have not agreed to have my contributions released under any other
> license other than the GFDL, and that is all I'm asserting. The flame
> is coming from the presumption that I am insisting on maintaining
> everything under the terms of the GFDL v 1.2, and that is not what I'm
> saying. I'm simply declaring in a public forum that I am asserting my
> copyright on my contributions to Wikimedia projects, and insisting
> they remain under the terms of the GFDL.... nothing more or less than
> simply this. The rest is reaction to this bold statement, as if the
> GFDL doesn't matter at all.
I think because of your incorrect statement of the issue (see above),
what you say in this paragraph is pretty much irrelevant. We're
talking about a revision of GFDL, not an abandonment of it.
More information about the foundation-l