[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[psychoslave at culture-libre.org]

Why does the MWF want to move to CC-by-sa ? I really don't understand.
What problem do you want to solve ? As I see it, trying to switch texts to
CC-by-sa will cause more problems than it could ever resolve. But it just
my opinion.

However I must say I'm partial. I dislike CC because I think it brings so
many confusion on what is a free license. I would be sad if MWF projects
would switch to a CC license.

Also I don't understand why the FSF go this way. If they want people to
confuse with the word "free", IMO, that the way to go.

Personally, I prefer the FAL. I used to use CC-by-sa-nc, when I didn't
understand the free culture movement, don't believe I have always thought
like I do today. I talked a lot here and there before I understood how bad
CC was for the free culture movement.

There are so many people out there which think CC is a license and display
"This work is under Creative Commons". And even when they pick a CC, how
many read the full text ? The FAL seems much human readable to me. I would
be sad if the MWF would switch to CC-by-sa, because it would mean
propagate this misunderstanding of the free culture.

However, that's not all the point. Probably as I prefer the FAL I would
feel less concerned, but still there would be this compatibilities issues.
If compatibility isn't bilateral, as I see it, this is just a one way to a
licenses compatibility nightmare.

Note that works are in progress to make bilaterally compatible the free
art license 1.3 and CC-by-sa 2.0-fr, if I well remember. Oh, by the way,
what about the CC-by-sa miscellaneous language en number versions
compatibility ?

To my mind, this is not a good idea, won't bring anything good and is a
waste of time. But of course, I could be wrong, and you could me explain
why and what I missed/misunderstood.

With all my apologies for my probably not so great English,
Mathieu Stumpf.
-- 
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/