[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[geni]

2009/1/8 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> I'd appreciate thoughts & comments.
>

Working from bottom to top:

Most of the answer to "If the migration occurs, will it change what
image licenses are allowed to be used on WMF projects?" is unhelpful.
Historically the foundation has not been involved in determining the
freeness of any given license and this is not something I feel that it
is in a position to get involved in. For example the "However, this
will only happen" is questionable. For example if caselaw evolved to
the point where the GFDL was clearly found to be hard copyleft then
obviously we would have to remove such images even with no change to
CC-BY-SA. I also suspect we have if not more FAL images that GFDL 1.2
only then a similar number and failing to consider both cases doesn't
look ideal.

heh technically the "Does this migration affect both text and images,
or only text?" is in error (GFDL CC-BY-SA 3.0 duel licensed images are
likely not to be effected and legally won't be) but only a
technicality


FSF vs CC? Probably the first section should mention that the FSF is
firmly okey with this. At the moment mostly focuses on what CC have
done.

"How will re-users determine whether or not an article is available under GFDL?"

Could you explain what "licensing guidelines" is going to entail? In
addition where is the "where it was originally published" clause in
CC-BY-SA?

Even more fun if we consider the statement "Wikipedia can release
their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel.
However, if they imported any external material that's available under
CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that."

The use of wikipedia in this sentence doesn't really make sense but
lets assume it is meant to be taken to be read as "people editing
wikipedia"

Now suppose I publish something under CC-BY-SA somewhere other than
wikipedia then import it into wikipedia. I don't have to make any
special mention that I'm importing it but the work would then become
CC-BY-SA only. Your suggested methods provide no way for reuses to
spot that.

I would go onto the rest of the section but I think I have made my
views on the whole duel licensing thing clear.

-- 
geni