[Foundation-l] Licensing update roll-out
Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
Thu Jun 18 18:34:29 UTC 2009
It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we
have to keep it forever and ever.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/6/18 Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller<erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
> >> re-users,
> > ...
> > If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
> > dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to
> > CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?
> As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l