[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Mike Godwin
mgodwin at wikimedia.org
Wed Jan 21 21:25:23 UTC 2009
Anthony writes:
> Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
> rather than
> counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
I'm astonished.
> There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.
They are sufficiently interchangeable or interoperable, however, that
they can be treated as one license for our purposes.
> (I believe there are
> over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)
I'm sure if *you* counted them there would be "over 100" at least.
> As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "You must
> not
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in
> relation to the
> Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> reputation"?
>
> That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that
> anyone can
> mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.
As Erik has explained, this is part of the moral-rights language
necessary to the license such that it can be applied in moral-rights-
honoring jurisdictions.
Perhaps you could write us a little essay on how you well you think
GFDL addresses the moral-rights question. I look forward to your
sharing your expertise, Counselor.
>> It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
>> than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
>>
> What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be
> judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?
That argument requires that you analyze GFDL on every dimension that
you analyze CC-BY-SA 3.0 on. I look forward to your analysis,
Counselor.
--Mike
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list