It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we have to keep it forever and ever.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > 2009/6/18 Stephen Bain <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of > >> re-users, > > ... > > > > If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled) > > dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to > > CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content? > > As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the > negotiations. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
