[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

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

Since you seem adamant that this last point is addressed,
allow me to oblige...

In terms of protection of the legal rights of copyright owners,
FSF is doing that only inasmuch as protecting those is the only
way to ensure the freedom of the content, and that is precisely
the "trust" that they uphold. In no way is the FSF in the business
of being a primary protector of any and all copyright owners
rights; quite the contrary.

I think Stallman himself says it best in his open reply
to the open criticism by Chris Frey:

"In my judgment and that of the FSF board, this licensing
change is fully consistent with our values, our ethics,
and our commitments, and should demonstrate that
the FSF continues to merit your trust. "Or any later
version" licensing enables us to give new permissions
that respond to the needs of the community,
as well as defend against new threats to users' freedom."

...and:

"The impact of the change is limited because the relicensing
option applies to a narrow range of cases: wiki sites such as
Wikipedia containing material which does not use certain
special features of the GFDL, invariant sections and cover
texts, that don't translate into CC-BY-SA."


I really have very little to add to that.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen