[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

Fri Nov 23 17:34:51 UTC 2007

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>   
>>> Either follow the terms of the GFDL or
>>> don't.  If you don't follow the GFDL, that means all of my contributions
>>> revert to ordinary copyright law with all rights reserved, and I do not
>>> give permission to use this content under any other license.
>>>
>>> -- Robert Horning
>>>       
>> Let me ask you, what exactly does the GFDL have that another license
>> might not, and why be such a stickler for the GFDL? If you are looking
>> to protect your rights over your contributions, most importantly the
>> right of attribution, why wouldn't a license like CC-BY-SA be
>> acceptable? A license like CC-BY-SA affords nearly all the same rights
>> and protections as GFDL, but doesn't require the work to be
>> accompanied by a lengthy copy of the license document.
>>
>> I think what most people want is (a) that their works are made freely
>> available, and (b) their rights are protected. Given these points,
>> what would be a rationale for opposing such a license switch, besides
>> wanting to be a pain in the ass?
>>
>> --Andrew Whitworth
>>     
>
> Let me second that request (without the part about the pain in the ass 
> tough). I really would like to understand better why you would consider 
> a cc-by-sa license not acceptable.
>
> Ant
>   
Some of this is that I get very confused when I talk about Creative 
Commons licenses.  You are talking about a specific license here, but 
that is IMHO one of the problems with this license.

I've known the Free Software Foundation, and RMS in particular, for some 
time now.  I may not agree with everything that RMS stands for, but he 
and the FSF is generally predictable and RMS has been very consistent 
for some time on the fundamental issues of intellectual property 
freedom.  I don't see the Free Software Foundation changing their 
licenses in a dramatic fashion to lose sight of that basic quest for 
Intellectual Property (software and the written word, but also 
trademarks and patents too) freedom.  In this regard, I suppose I can 
say that I don't have the same level of trust with Creative 
Commons...even if other may put the same or more trust that Creative 
Commons on this front.

For example, there are several non-commercial only licenses in the 
Creative Commons suite.  The Free Software Foundation has been very 
consistent that non-commercial use only is actually harmful to the basic 
freedoms of IP content and has never endorsed any such license... and 
all of the FSF licenses openly encourage for-profit activities with 
content that uses their licenses.  They have also encouraged (unlike the 
WMF I might add) others to make a commercial profit... if possible... 
with intellectual property that actually belongs to the FSF using no 
other restriction other than simply using the terms of the licenses that 
they have already published.  This even includes the FSF logo I might 
add as well.  That is a very bold statement in terms of freedoms of content.

In all this I'm not saying that the CC-by-SA license is the spawn of the 
devil or anything else that crass.  Some very good work has gone into 
the development of the Creative Commons licenses, and I generally 
support the overall goals of those involved in that effort.  I just 
haven't released much content in those licenses, and as a matter of 
personal preference generally try not to use those licenses unless the 
people I'm working with insist upon a Creative Commons license of some 
sort or another.  I'm not even really sure I can put it in words more 
clearly than this, but in short, I really don't like the license.  It is 
also more or less why I like one political party over another, but I 
feel others are entitled to their own opinions on the subject as long as 
they don't force me to change my position.

I also think the WMF was very lucky to have started out with the GFDL 
instead of other licenses, and that the experiment to create an 
encyclopedia based upon the GFDL has been wildly successful.  While many 
of those involved with Wikipedia and the other sister projects may not 
really be concerned about licenses and legal nonsense, I do believe that 
much of the success of these projects has to do with the freedoms 
enshrined within the GFDL...in spite of problems with the GFDL that we 
all know that it has.

-- Robert Horning