[Licom-l] outreach question

[Samuel Klein]

If they have included the default blurb somewhere on their site (as it
is recommended one do "after the title page" of a book, so presumably
in at least one place on a site), they shouldn't have trouble
upgrading.  If they have said everywhere simple "Version 1.2" then it
may be harder for them to change the license to 1.3 or future GFDL
versions or to cc-sa.

They have everywhere linked to the lateest version of the FDL on the
fsf site, which indicates that the version didn't matter to them; I
think that given the spirit of their implementation there would be no
complaints if they migrated, but only if they are comfortable with
that.


The full text of the GFDL 1.2 used to have an addendum saying the
mechanism for using the license was adding this blurb to the front of
the work:

"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A
copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free
Documentation License".

so this was implied within the default text of the license for any
reuser that didn't customize that text and that addendum.

SJ




On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Ryan Kaldari<kaldari at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just heard back from WikiDoc (an online medical encyclopedia). Their
> site is currently licensed under GFDL 1.2, not 1.2 or later versions.
> They want to know if migration is still possible for them, and if so,
> how they can accomplish it. Frankly I'm not sure what to tell them.
> Any ideas?
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Licom-l mailing list
> Licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/licom-l
>