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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/9 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
> my
> > copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
> any
> > license I have granted them.
>
> I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL
> with regards to what they are doing. Suffice to say the foundation
> isn't actually required to credit you in any way shape or form with
> regards to the dumps (since they are effectively verbatim copying and
> since there are no cover texts section 3 doesn't place any significant
> further requirements).


The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it.  The only time they're even
arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
where I am the last author or for historical revisions.

You may not like this but that would be inconsistent with your claims
> to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0.


I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0.  I've
implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0.  It isn't clear what it means.
There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.  Further, there
seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require "a link" to
such attribution, and that's even worse.  And then, topping it off, there
are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a
URL as "attribution".  And Creative Commons is working closely with these
people.  So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance
CC-BY-SA 4.0 will.

I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not.  But I'd rather
not chance it.  Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.

You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people
relicense that content under the GFDL?  That'll achieve compatibility just
as well.  Obviously you think there are some "onerous requirements" in the
GFDL that make that unacceptable.  Of course, if that's the case, and these
requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the
GFDL?  Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all?