On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> 2009/3/16 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or > later". > >> Try > >> > again. > >> > >> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you > >> claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when? > > > > > > It still doesn't. There is a place where it says "Version 1.2 or any > later > > version published by the Free Software Foundation", which was added in > March > > 2007. > > So it does say it... you are contradicting yourself. It doesn't say "or later". It says "or [...] later [...]". > What did it say > before March 2007? If it just said "GFDL" (which I think is likely), > then that implicitly means "or later" (the license text makes that > clear). > Immediately before March 2007 it said "GFDL". The full history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&action=history > > But CC-by-sa is not published by the FSF, and the word "published", > > according to Wiktionary, is in the past tense (and I have not clicked > submit > > since Version 1.3 was released). So that argument fails in many ways, > > before even getting to the problems with GFDL 1.3 itself. > > Obviously when reusing it you need to reuse it under a license that > was published in the past, that's what is meant by the use of the past > tense and I think that is perfectly clear to any reasonable person. I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under a license that doesn't yet exist. > We know CC-BY-SA isn't an FSF license, the FSF have released a new > version of GFDL allowing relicensing under CC-BY-SA (as you well > know), It allows an MMC Site (presumably, the WMF) to republish the work under CC-BY-SA. But the WMF has had its rights under the GFDL revoked, and the permission to republish doesn't extend to third parties anyway. > so what are you claiming, that the "or later" part is invalid > or that a license which allows relicensing under a different license > is invalid? Both, and then some. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
