[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Sun Nov 25 19:51:07 UTC 2007

On Nov 25, 2007 2:33 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
But...it's a strawman.  A better response would be "No I didn't
license it under GFDL 1.2 Or Later; furthermore, even if I did, I
retract it."

More information about the foundation-l mailing list