On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 this context, for a license to be the "same license" as the GFDL, it would need to be called "GFDL X.Y" and be published by the FSF. > 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. Feel free to rephrase it. I admit it's a strawman, but I did attempt to phrase it as favorably as possible while remaining accurate. Of course, I'm biased, which is why I invited anyone else to attempt to connect the dots on their own. If you claim to have a license to use my content under CC-BY-SA, some simple questions you should be able to answer include "who granted that license to you" and "when did they do it". > 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. Huh? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
