GFDL 1.3

[Sam Liddicott]

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 05/11/08 14:46:
> Simo,
>
> simo wrote:
>   
>> The GFDL has always been a controversial license and it was clear very
>> soon after Wikimedia adopted it that it's language was not right for
>> that content. Most people agree that a CC-BY-SA would have been a more
>> appropriate license, so maybe the update *does* reflect what most
>> authors thought was the right direction.
>>     
>
> Well, that's more speculation - I'm quite happy to believe most / all 
> authors think it is the right thing, but who knows?
>
> It's pretty much beside my point, though. It's not so much whether this 
> is right or wrong, but whether the *mechanism* is right or wrong. It 
> sets a precedent that the FSF feel ok using the "or later" clause to 
> re-license other people's work without their permission, and I feel 
> that's a dangerous precedent.
>
> I also worry about it making Wikipedia's problem worse with the forking 
> issues, but that's really Wikipedia's problem again. And, to be frank, 
> this has been their problem all along: they chose the wrong license, and 
> now it's being "fixed" with this hack. I appreciate that the FSF is 
> trying to help them; I just don't think this is the right way to do it: 
> Wikimedia should be cleaning up their own mess.
>   
It's called "The tyranny of good intentions"

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20081105/c58e7510/attachment.html>