* 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
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
