[Foundation-l] GFDL and Relicensing

Thu Nov 22 17:16:51 UTC 2007

On 22/11/2007, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > Have you read GPLv3? And how it achieves compatibility with the Apache
> > v2 licence and the AGPL.
> > I would be amazed if the FSF were as careless as you hypothesise them to be.

> If this happens where compatibility between the CC-by-SA license is the only consideration for a future license, I will have to consider the updated version of the GFDL to be an utter failure.
> BTW, I haven't read the "official" GPLv3, but I have read draft versions of it from time to time.  And have watched some of the diffs between the various draft versions as well.  Some of this is to fix problems that RMS sees are an issue (such as the Tivo-related stuff, and the expansion of the patent issue section) and some is to adapt to the newer technology that wasn't originally anticipated when the GFDL was originally written... especially web services and software distribution models that don't use a traditional operating system like Unix or Windows.  I have also read some of the drafts of the updated GFDL, and so far I haven't seen anything so drastic to suggest that the GFDL is going to have a massive overhaul here, although there are some explicit concerns that have been addressed.  Full compatibility and harmonization with CC-by-SA or any other CC license seems like a good idea, but a dream, and I'll have to see it to believe it.  The GFDL fills a different niche in document licenses, and I have a hard time seeing RMS give up some of his pet ideas that went into the GFDL originally.

Well, yeah. It's essentially a book license. (Would I be right in
guessing that this is why you like it just how it is for books?)

The problem is it's a bloody awful licence for massively-edited
wiki-based content in lumps less than a book.

- d.