[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Anthony]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 this context, for a license to be the "same license" as the GFDL, it
would need to be called "GFDL X.Y" and be published by the FSF.

> 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.


Feel free to rephrase it.  I admit it's a strawman, but I did attempt to
phrase it as favorably as possible while remaining accurate.  Of course, I'm
biased, which is why I invited anyone else to attempt to connect the dots on
their own.

If you claim to have a license to use my content under CC-BY-SA, some simple
questions you should be able to answer include "who granted that license to
you" and "when did they do it".


> 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.


Huh?