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

Wed May 14 10:27:37 UTC 2008

dear Mako, thanks for the clarifications,
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:50:50PM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > 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

Okay, well "many eyes make shallow bugs" and I shall look forward to
seeing the discussion draft of the GFDL version that gives mass
collaborative projects a chance to migrate to a different copyleft license.

> > 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.

Understood. Looking at the original writing on "free documentation"
principles, of which the GFDL is an example, it seems quit clear that 
GFDL was designed specifically for *technical documentation of software*.
( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html )
For wiki projects the GFDL terms about "invariant sections" are inappropriate,
but that in itself is not a reason to change it.

However I don't see how GFDL 1.2 is considered "free" according to the
Free Cultural Works Definition ("the license must not limit the
freedom to distribute a modified version ... regardless of the intent and
purpose of such modifications.") but that is probably a conversation
for some other mailing list :)

cheers,

jo
--