--- Karl Wick <karlwick(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Please show me ANY evidence that RMS and the FSF
will be
flexible about changing their licensing terms how we
want
them.
Otherwise lets get new modules released in some way
that is
*not* exclusively GNU FDL.
AFAICT, The FSF has no discression over how we use the
licence unless they sue us. And if we , for example,
switch wikipedia to the Creative Commons, then nothing
bad can happen without lawsuit for something like
which licence's text was there, which is extremely
unlikely IMO. But many wikipedians think it is
unethical to not follow the GNU FDL.
Here's my impression of how the license works. Things
submitted to Wikipedia (and wikibooks) are still owned
by the people who submit them, Wikipedia is just
licensed to use it under the GNU FDL. If all authors
of a particular page (including anons) agree to
relicense the page under, say, the Creative Commons
Share-Alike, the page may be relicenced. But that
would be stupid and pointless. However, it would be
very useful in wikibooks, as a textbook module might,
for example, use some creative-commons sharealike
licenced things. I'm not sure, but I think that we can
even say "Above this line was licenced under the GNU
FDL, below this line is licenced under the Creative
Commons Sharealike."
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com