[Foundation-l] The license situation

[Anthony]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My
> preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which
> explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but
> where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license
> that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as
> opposed to "the exact same license".
>
> > the GFDL 1.2 only images
> > People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness
> > makes conventional commercial use tricky.
>
> I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3.
> Whether or not we want to continue using "GFDL 1.2 only" content is a
> separate decision. Partially, this seems to be a debate for the
> Commons community about whether GFDL 1.2 only is "free enough", given
> the encumbrances you mention.


That's a scary comment, especially considering the comment above about
CC-BY-SA 3.1 and the knowledge that you "initiated" the "Definition of Free
Cultural Works".

Which leads me to another question.  Who controls this definition?
http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't
find anything about the current situation.