Slashdot Mirror
GFDL 1.3 Is Out, Allows Migration To CC
David Gerard writes "Version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License is out (FAQ). This license is little-used, except on the #8 site in the world: Wikipedia. And this version includes special provisions to re-license wiki-based content from GFDL to the much simpler Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 3.0, as requested by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia plans to hold a public consultation process to decide whether and how to migrate to CC-BY-SA. The discussion is already running hot and heavy."
Why bother with this licence at all? Why not just use creative commons? Are there any notable, useful differences or is the licence trying to spread some GNU brand recognition through association?
It seems to say that you can now use FDL 1.3 licensed documents under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but only if it was on a wiki before 01 Nov 2008.
Since the license was released on 03 Nov 2008, you would not have been able to put a document on a wiki before then. So is this a reward for people who broke the licensing agreements, an amnesty or what?
The GFDL is based on the narrow politics of the FSF, while CC was created to allow people to choose what restrictions they want on their work.
I'm not sure the wholesale changing of license under author's noses is great, but if they wrote in the GPL suggested "version x or later" clause, well...they agreed to it already. Which is why I don't like giving other people blank contracts. I probably wouldn't have minded if I had donated something as GFDL, but the implications are scary. Said clause gives them permission to do just about anything. Few people I would trust this way.
Actually, I like the CC name as it quite clearly describes what it's providing. That it's OK to share if you provide attribution and share under the same terms as the liecnse.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I disagree that the GFDL "turns out to be highly impractical for Wikipedia" or "any meaningful reuse of its content"
This is just a bunch of people who are religious zealots about the Creative Commons licensing suite who are upset that they can't just re-license the content of Wikipedia into whatever other content license they choose, and hate the viral nature of the Free Software Foundation license suite.
The politics of this simply turn my stomach, even if there are some "legitimate" issues about the GFDL that do need to be worked out. Switching licenses, I don't believe, resolves the issues here and instead creates even more heartburn.
Furthermore, one of the reasons I contribute to Wikimedia projects is because they are licensed under the GFDL, and I support the general goals set forth by the Free Software Foundation for this sort of content.
Like I said, there are problems with the GFDL, but throwing it away just because a small group (and it is a very small group of individuals pushing to make this change) doesn't like the Free Software Foundation. Unfortunately this small group making this change also have some prominent positions within the WMF.
The other issue is that no-one understands the GFDL. Not even the FSF. Really - you email licensing@fsf.org with a GFDL query, you will get back a response, three months later, saying "read the license text and consult with your attorney." Our attorney is Mike Godwin and it makes even his head hurt.
The FSF have given up making any sense of the license, so we can hardly be expected to.
http://rocknerd.co.uk