[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Anthony wrote:
> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of the
> same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a
> different license.
>   

Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to
define a license as being different if it changes something
you don't like.

> In any case, the "or later" language has only been included on the edit page
> since March 2007, and even then it has been hidden in the fine print.  You
> claim that a company has a license to use a particular work under CC-BY-SA
> 3.0 just because the author hit "save page" on a website which years later
> was altered to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions
> under the terms of the
> *GFDL*<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit#copyright>
> *." "GNU Free Documentation
> License<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>,
> Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
> with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no
> Back-Cover Texts." and because GFDL 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site
> may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site
> at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for
> relicensing."
>
> Good luck with that.
>   

For the record, the above is simple rubbish, and very
casuistically phrased to boot. The torturous logic can't
disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go
and is not departing from that license against the prime
guardian of that license. That is the bare fact.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen