[okfn-discuss] Re: PlayShakes

Wed Jan 10 11:49:43 UTC 2007

Ron Severdia wrote:
> I don't see the GFDL differences as "problems" like you do. The cover 
> text aspect is the only thing that makes it "accountable" (which is a 
> word very loosely used in this sense) so there's no budging on that 
> point (based on all the previously stated reasons). There must be some 
> way for attribution and, if possible, to educate a consumer that they 

You don't need the GFDL in order to have attribution -- you can get that
with any of the CC licences (and many others).

> might be paying for a product that they could otherwise get for free.

I understand the motivation here but is this really worth the cost.
Invariant sections, for example, render the GFDL incompatible with any
other share-alike licensed work (either that licensed under the GPL or
the CC by-sa licence). Many of the issues with invariant sections are
listed on:

   http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html

Regards,

Rufus Pollock

> On Dec 28, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> 
>> Glad to hear you aren't going for a non-commercial restriction. But I 
>> wondered why the GFDL rather than CC by-sa? The current GFDL has 
>> various problems compared to the CC licenses, see the section on the 
>> GFDL in:
>>
>>   http://okd.okfn.org/licenses
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>> Ron Severdia wrote:
>>> Hi Rufus,
>>> After long deliberations with my lawyer and putting together all the 
>>> ideas, thoughts & suggestions, I've decided to go with the GFDL for 
>>> all content on the site. I've already put the notice up, which 
>>> requires Front-Cover & Back-Cover texts. I'm also going to put the 
>>> same notice in the forum so that anything posted there is 
>>> automatically covered under the same license.
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>> Ron
> 