Anthony wrote: > Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of the > same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a > different license. >
Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to define a license as being different if it changes something you don't like. > In any case, the "or later" language has only been included on the edit page > since March 2007, and even then it has been hidden in the fine print. You > claim that a company has a license to use a particular work under CC-BY-SA > 3.0 just because the author hit "save page" on a website which years later > was altered to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions > under the terms of the > *GFDL*<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit#copyright> > *." "GNU Free Documentation > License<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>, > Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; > with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no > Back-Cover Texts." and because GFDL 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site > may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site > at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for > relicensing." > > Good luck with that. > For the record, the above is simple rubbish, and very casuistically phrased to boot. The torturous logic can't disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go and is not departing from that license against the prime guardian of that license. That is the bare fact. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
