[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

[Anthony]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/3/16 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
>
> >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
> later".
> >>  Try
> >> > again.
>
> >> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
> >> claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when?
>
> > It still doesn't.  There is a place where it says "Version 1.2 or any
> later
> > version published by the Free Software Foundation", which was added in
> March
> > 2007.  But CC-by-sa is not published by the FSF, and the word
> "published",
> > according to Wiktionary, is in the past tense (and I have not clicked
> submit
> > since Version 1.3 was released).  So that argument fails in many ways,
> > before even getting to the problems with GFDL 1.3 itself.
>
>
> Your paragraph is hopelessly tangled.


So is the trail from GFDL 1.2 to CC-BY-SA.


> Which of the following are you claiming:
>
> (a) your edits were not released under GFDL 1.2 or later?


Certainly not in the manner that you interpret that.

(b) that edits (in general) released under GFDL 1.2 or later would not
> be usable under GFDL 1.3?


In some hypothetical situation, maybe.  Not in the present one.


> (c) that edits released under GFDL 1.3 could not be moved to CC by-sa 3.0?


The word "moved" (or "move") does not appear in GFDL 1.3   What it says is
that "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site
under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided
the MMC is eligible for relicensing."  Of course, in the case where that MMC
Site's license under the GFDL has been revoked, it's academic.  But there's
nothing in the GFDL 1.3 which even *claims* that a third party can use the
work under CC-BY-SA, and further even if the GFDL 1.3 did make that claim it
would be void anyway as CC-BY-SA is not in the same spirit as the GFDL.