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

[geni]

2009/1/10 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:

>
> 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.

Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every
modified version is first distributed by someone other than the
foundation. That the foundation then produces a  verbatim copy of that
rather than a modified version.

> 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.

That doesn't even make sense

> Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0.

You've never demonstrated an ability to understand any free license or
copyright law in general so that doesn't greatly concern me.

>  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.

The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in
a section name and one reference to the section.

There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would
be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use
the relevant clause.

>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.

That is actually a step up from what the GFDL requires (and remember
the GFDL has no problems in principle with stuff being provided by
link see the whole transparent copy stuff)

>  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 doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they
are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as
acceptable attribution.

> 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.

There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC
image on a postcard. GFDL not so much.


> 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?

Because switching because allowing the shift to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is their
way of removing them. About the only remotely significant stuff still
under the GFDL once the switch is over will be software manuals for
which the GFDL is merely a tolerably bad license.

-- 
geni