[okfn-discuss] GFDL updates, compatibility, and confusion

[Benj. Mako Hill]

<quote who="jo at frot.org" date="Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:25:38AM -0700">
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
> "[Wikimedia] Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation
> License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow
> migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons
> CC-BY-SA license"
> 
> I see a GFDL v2 discussion draft from September 2006:
> http://www.fsf.org/news/gfdl-dd1.html that does not contain the
> changes I've heard discussed (invariant sections, obligation to
> transmit the license to derived or combined works) as needed. 
> 
> As i understand it, work was or is in progress on an updated version
> of the GFDL that would be compatible with CC-BY-SA.

Work continues and will until both FSF and WMF are happy. The new GFDL
will aim to do what the WMF requested -- enable WMF projects to migrate
to BY-SA. It would presumptive to assume that the method taken will be
to create blanket compatibility between the GFDL and the CC BY-SA.

> Meanwhile CC-BY-SA from 3.0 would allow the relicensing of a combined
> or derived work under a compatible license. But there aren't any
> listed here: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

As far as I know, there is none.

There are real differences between BY-SA and GFDL. Compatibility will
require convincing the FSF (and RMS in particular who wrote the GFDL for
his own documentation) that the differences are unimportant.  Nobody has
been able to do that successfully.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako at atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20080513/4334fa63/attachment.sig>