2009/2/10 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > The text, of both the GPL and the GFDL, states the purpose of "or later" > quite clearly. > > "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU > Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be > similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to > address new problems or concerns." > > The only valid reason to make changes to the license is "to address new > problems or concerns".
You are free to argue that however the history of the freedom or death clause suggests that the FSF is useing quite a broad definition of those terms. >As has been pointed out many times by the people > defending this switch, the concerns and alleged "problems" of the GFDL are > not at all new. Not so. > > For a similar perspective on this issue, which called the FSF's decision "a > serious moral mistake and breach of trust", see the Open Letter to Richard > Stallman by Chris Frey (http://www.advogato.org/article/990.html). Actually Chris Frey is taking something close to the opposite position to you. His position is that was always a potential use for those clauses but it is a use he didn't expect or want to see actually happen. > How is that a flaw? Seems like a feature to me. I'd say the attempt to > create a license which works equally well for software documentation, > encyclopedias, t-shirts, and coffee mugs is one of the flaws with CC-BY-SA, > not one of the solutions. Yeah that argument might work in about 1950. Actual real world experience suggests that it doesn't work. The first problem you have is that content doesn't stay in the same format if left to itself. For example what format is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_hospitalityreduced.png It was originally published in a magazine. The physical version that was actually scanned is from a punch annual. It is now an electronic document. Could be any number of things tomorrow (punch cartoons are popular in history textbooks for example). The same pictures may quite legitimately be used in books, on t-shirts, on calendars, on posters and on websites. Any license that can't cope with this is living in the wrong century. The other issue you have is that the GFDL isn't much use for software documentation. If you want to include bits of code and screen shots realistically the documentation needs to be GPL. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
