[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Robert Rohde]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu>:
>> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
>> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
>> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
>> it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
>> license? We have tremendous goodwill with both the FSF and CC, surely we can
>> get our own license that applies specifically to the problems that wikis
>> face and other content mediums do not.
>
> We can't relicense GFDL works under a license which isn't in the same
> spirit, a license which allowed attribution to "Wikipedia" without the
> explicit consent of the author wouldn't be in the same spirit.

My reading of the spirit clause:

"The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the
GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns."

is that it is really only binding on the FSF, and it is fuzzy enough
to allow them lots of wiggle room.  (Which parts of the license
constitute its spirit, and which are merely details?)  As the
maintainers of the license they would seem to have wide latitude to
decide.  I don't know if the FSF would allow attribution by
"Wikipedia", and there are certainly some good arguments against it,
but I wouldn't assume that it couldn't happen.  By allowing the
CC-BY-SA migration in the first place they have already made a quite
substantial change in how licensing is handled, and I wouldn't assume
they would rule out other large changes.

-Robert Rohde