[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Sun Nov 25 19:33:57 UTC 2007

On 25/11/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there is a key part of the equation that we're missing - how
> big would the differences between the current GFDL and the new one be?
> If they're all very minor, there's a good chance no-one will bother
> doing anything, if they're quite major, it's a much bigger issue.
> Until we actually have a provisional new license in front of us, we
> really can't be sure. My guess (and that's all it is at this stage),
> is that the changes required to unify GFDL and CC-by-SA would be
> fairly large, and it would end up being dependant on people's views of
> the "spirit" of the license.

The licence is a defence.

Plaintiff: "Defendant is using my copyright content unlicensed."
Defendant: "Plaintiff licensed it under GFDL 1.2 Or Later, and I'm
using it per GFDL 4.7, which is covered by Plaintiff's release."
Plaintiff: "But 4.7's not in the same spirit as 1.2!"

I can't see this flying.

They'd need to bring an action against the FSF and have it stick
before they could put those reusing under an "or later" provision in
serious danger for doing so in good faith. I would think.

(not a lawyer, much less a US lawyer, but have been around this stuff
way too long; correction welcomed from those who are)

- d.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list