[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[psychoslave at culture-libre.org]

> 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?
>>
>> Nathan
>
> I looked into this at one point there are a number of problems.
>
> 1)Compatibility. It is unlikely we would see anyone else using our
> license on a significant scale so we lock ourselves off from the rest
> of the free content mob.

You can put a compatibility clause. In the FAL there is one which say you
can relicense as long as the new license enable you to do the other way
-ie you can took back the new work under FAL-.

> 2)Setup of the WMF. The WMF is it's current form is aimed at running
> wikipedia not writing and maintaining free licenses

I Agree.

> 3)One of the very firm lessons of the GFDL mess is that righting a
> free content license with any specific purpose in mind is a bad idea.

I Agree. By the way, you can place any work under FAL, even painting and
sculpture. And in fact, it's what happens, people are really using the FAL
for physical works. CC are more digital centric.

> 4)Trust in the WMF. The FSF can be relied on to stick to it's
> principles. CC has agreed to stick to a certain set. Putting both the
> position of main content hoster and license control in the hands of
> the same people is a very significant risk.

I Agree once again. In my native language we say, "you don't put all your
eggs in the same bag".