[Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

geni wrote:
> 2009/3/17 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Some people on this list have had a negative reaction to the licensing
>> proposal.  Sometimes this arises from different understandings of what
>> the new license will mean (i.e. issues of interpretation).  More often
>> it seems the core issues are different opinions about whether the
>> change is desirable (i.e. issues of personal preference).  For
>> example, if you believe the license text ought to appear alongside
>> every copy, then you have a personal preference for the GFDL.
>>
>> The licensing update FAQ [1] has largely been written in the voice of
>> the Foundation.  It explains what is going on, what the advantages of
>> the transition are, and what some of the implications are.  However,
>> it does not generally speak for the opposition, nor does it explain
>> why anyone would prefer the GFDL, even though some people on this list
>> clearly do.
>>
>>     
>
> 1 person on this list. The rest of the opposition comes from the
> foundations unlawful and ill thought out proposed TOS.
>
>
>
>   

I wholeheartedly agree with geni here. While I support Robert
Rohde's general sentiment of "let's just get on with it", his
description of the situation as it stands leaves much to be
desired for.

There absolutely has only been the one voice bemoaning
the passing of gfdl from wikimedia, and that voice not even
accepting RMS own words or trust of the replacement
scheme. It beggars belief that someone would think that
anyone would come to the conclusion that this equates
to "some people on this list clearly do". There is just one
"jeremiah" on this list.

But I have to object also on the point that supposedly the
other side has merely given some metaphysical "foundation
view" on the issue. That is just simple bullcrap.

The one loud voice here from the foundation *staff* (staff
mind you, not the board of trustees) was espousing a very
novel interpretation of the CC-BY-SA that would have quite
spectacularly failed the "tentacles of evil" test of the Debian
guidelines.

Even still the wording seems to not quite get the point of
share-alike, but frankly not in a fatal way, and can be easily
adjusted later, since it is merely misleading the very naive,
who don't quite understand the real liberties that the
genuine license gives them.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen