Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: >> Yes, but isn't this inevitable no matter how the change of licence is done?
> No, [...] > > In previous drafts I saw, there was an idea of being able to relicense > to a "GNU Wiki License" which would have presumably been CC-BY-SA > compatible without needing to relicense to that license[...] > If that option had been open-ended[...] It's possible that after trying, they decided that licence compatibility was impossible. I'm also not sure if licence compatibility can be open-ended. If the hypothetical GNU Wiki License was compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0, then the window of compatibility would close when cc-by-sa was changed in an incompatible way. So there's an end either way, and dates are probably a cleaner end because they're fixed and they don't create the inconvenience that decisions to update cc-by-sa in good-but-incompatible ways now also invoke this end of compatibility. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/status_of_fsfe_s_legal_dept_ftf http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
