[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[Nathan]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/11/4 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>
> > Seriously - why do we have to yoke ourselves to yet another external
> > organization? Clearly the binding association with the FSF has presented
> a
> > number of problems and limitations - wouldn't it be preferable to have
> > control of the terms, and write in compatibility with the licenses we'd
> like
> > to accomodate?
>
>
> CC by-sa is for free content like the GPL is for software. You can
> have copyleft licenses that aren't compatible, but it's the one
> *everyone else* uses. By using a free software licence that's
> incompatible with the GPL, you're cutting yourself off from mixing
> with an entire world of software, defining your own tiny irrelevant
> bubble; by using a free content licence that's incompatible with CC
> by-sa, you're cutting yourself off from mixing with an entire world of
> content, defining your own tiny irrelevant bubble.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Well, I'm not sure I'd describe the WMF as a tiny irrelevant bubble. On the
other hand, shouldn't it be possible to craft a license that accomplishes
both our goals and provides compatibility with the CC (and other) free
licenses? And if its possible, wouldn't it be preferable to be able to
manage the terms in such a way that we're not constrained by the
deliberative speed of another organization?  Even if you adopted identical
terms to the CC license, with the "future compatibility" of a "substantially
equivalent Wikimedia Free License" you'd have the flexibility to make
necessary adaptations in the future without waiting 2 years for a decision
from the FSF.

Nathan