[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[geni]

2009/2/10 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> relicensing that is currently taking place.  The power to release content
> under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually, not
> collectively. "Or later" was meant for minor changes or when fundamental
> flaws/loopholes were found in the license itself, not for the case when a
> supermajority of license users decides they should have picked a different
> license.

The history of the GPL suggests otherwise.

>At least that's what I and many others thought is was meant for.

Name them.

> The FSF violated an important trust when they introduced this relicensing
> clause into GFDL 1.3, and that's the biggest flaw with the GFDL.

Nah. By far the biggest flaw with the GFDL was that it was written
with a rather narrow definition of document in mind.

> Finally, a point which seems to be missed.  The WMF is not considering
> switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.  It is considering switching from GFDL only
> to dual licensing under GFDL and CC-BY-SA.  In terms of protection of the
> legal rights of the copyright owners, such a switch can *only* make things
> worse, not better.

Not really. Apart from anything else there are no shortage of ways to
break the duel licensing if you really want to. In addition any
license update will tend in the short term to result in or at least
allow a degree of dual licensing.


-- 
geni