[Licom-l] Which GFDL?

[Robert Rohde]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
>> We have to invoke GFDL 1.3 to relicense, but I can't see any practical
>> advantage to using 1.3 for new edits.
>
> 1.3 includes some small refinements in the "Termination" section. I
> don't see any disadvantage to requiring continued edits to be licensed
> under FDL 1.3, except for the rare edge case of people who want
> compatibility with "FDL 1.2 only". My understanding has always been
> that continued licensing would be under FDL 1.3.

Its not just GFDL 1.2-only works that have an issue though.  If we go
to 1.3 it also pushes anyone who does want to stay with GFDL to
upgrade as will.  A GFDL 1.2-or-later document can't import GFDL 1.3
material without being forced into an upgrade.

It's not a big deal, especially if most GFDL wikis go CC, but it seems
like an added hassle for everyone using GFDL 1.2 while receiving very
little gain.  In general, since license version changes tend to create
incompatibilities in at least one direction, I think it behooves the
free content community to upgrade licenses only when there is a strong
motivation for doing so.  That's my opinion anyway.

Incidentally, was there some clamor of people that wanted more
detailed termination procedures?  I ask because the change surprised
me.  Of all the things people complain about in the GFDL, I'm not sure
I've ever heard get excited over the termination section, and yet it
was one of only two big changes to make it into 1.3.

-Robert Rohde