<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" date="Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:25:38AM -0700"> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update > "[Wikimedia] Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation > License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow > migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons > CC-BY-SA license" > > I see a GFDL v2 discussion draft from September 2006: > http://www.fsf.org/news/gfdl-dd1.html that does not contain the > changes I've heard discussed (invariant sections, obligation to > transmit the license to derived or combined works) as needed. > > As i understand it, work was or is in progress on an updated version > of the GFDL that would be compatible with CC-BY-SA.
Work continues and will until both FSF and WMF are happy. The new GFDL will aim to do what the WMF requested -- enable WMF projects to migrate to BY-SA. It would presumptive to assume that the method taken will be to create blanket compatibility between the GFDL and the CC BY-SA. > Meanwhile CC-BY-SA from 3.0 would allow the relicensing of a combined > or derived work under a compatible license. But there aren't any > listed here: http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses As far as I know, there is none. There are real differences between BY-SA and GFDL. Compatibility will require convincing the FSF (and RMS in particular who wrote the GFDL for his own documentation) that the differences are unimportant. Nobody has been able to do that successfully. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
