[Foundation-l] Projects without >FDL1.2 migration clause

John at Darkstar vacuum at jeb.no
Mon Apr 7 18:32:04 UTC 2008

Its enough that someone believe the project used "GFDL 1.2 only" at the
moment s/he contributed. Changing the license notice later isn't
addressing the problem, it escalates the problem as it opens up for a
discussion wetter the terms has changed substantially. Ie., has it given
the user the possibility to opt out of the contract.

Personally I think it would be very wise to take one step back and look
into the problems created _very_ carefully, and ask each project if they
know about any problems that might arise.


Erik Moeller skrev:
> On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about
>>  something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which
>>  is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't
>>  forget.
> You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_
> GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any -
> the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed.
> So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only
> clause, but not of any projects.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list