[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,  


More information about the foundation-l mailing list