Re: GFDL / CC by-sa compatibility

>That is a matter of opinion. Many people in the Debian project say that but 
>RMS and the FSF disagree. I happen to agree with the FSF on this.
>
And I agree with the Debian project.  But this certainly isn't the list 
to discuss that.

>But yes, anything under the updated CC by-sa could be transfered to the GFDL and 
>somebody could add invariant sections. This is already true for /all/ 
>Wikimedia content but I'm not aware of anybody doing this with our work. So 
>it is just hypothetical.
>  
>
Yes, it's hypothetical.  Of course, I'm not aware of anybody legally 
using Wikipedia content for commercial purposes either, so hypothetical 
is basically all we've got.  And yes, it is already true for Wikimedia 
content.  But it isn't already true for all CC-by-sa content.  
Bastardising the CC-by-sa license for the sake of Wikimedia doesn't seem 
like a smart thing for CC to do.

>Also, since the CC by-sa does not provide for invariant sections I'm sure a 
>rewritten GFDL would state that GFDL content with invariant sections could 
>not be licensed under the CC by-sa (otherwise anybody could easily remove the 
>sections). IMO, RMS seems very stubborn on the invariant sections issue and 
>does not seem willing to get rid of them in future versions of the GFDL (I 
>wish they were; the thought of invariant sections being used to make free 
>content less free bugs the hell out of me).
>  
>
Of course, invariant sections were only one of the discrepancies that I 
mentioned.  Maybe the FSF would be willing to eliminate the other 
problems, like "transparancy," but I wouldn't count on it.

>The point would be that text licensed in one could be mixed and matched under 
>the other. Dual licensing would be different: 
>1) It would require the compilation licensor (us) to adhere to the entire 
>terms of both the GFDL and the CC by-sa.
>  
>
That's not how dual licensing works.  Dual licensing means you get both 
licenses separately, not that you have to adhere to both 
simultaneously.  You could adhere to both, but you don't have to.

>2) It would require the licensee (any user of our content) to choose either 
>GFDL or the CC by-sa. They could not choose both. Thus any modifications they 
>make to the text cannot be re-incorporated back into Wikipedia. 
>  
>
They could choose both.  As for not being able to reincorporate text 
back into Wikipedia in case they didn't choose both, that's already a 
problem, unless *both* the FSF *and* CC change their licenses.  But then 
we'd be right back where we started.  We'd have the GFDL 1.2.  And we'd 
have by-sa 1.0.  Then we'd have GFDL 2.0, which would be identical to 
by-sa 2.0.  And neither would be compatible with by-sa 1.0.  As for what 
GFDL 2.0/by-sa 2.0 would entail, that would be dependent on what 
compromise CC and the FSF reached on their differences.  Maybe invariant 
texts would be allowed, but "transparancy" wouldn't, for instance.

>But having both the CC by-sa and the GFDL explicitly compatible would greatly 
>simplify things and make it freer:
>1) It would require the compilation licensor (us) to adhere to the terms of 
>just one license.
>  
>
Yes, because there would only *be* one license, the "by-sa or GFDL license."

>2) It would give the licensee the freedom to choose either the GFDL or the CC 
>by-sa depending on their needs (admittedly not much different than with dual 
>licensing). However, any modifications they make to the text can be 
>re-incorporated back into Wikipedia (or the CC by-sa Wikitravel).
>  
>
There would be no choice.  The two would be identical.  Yes, they could 
choose not to implement invariant sections, but they already have that 
choice.  Yes, they could choose to implement invariant sections, and 
then they'd have to stay under the license which allows invariant 
licenses.  But that's the whole point of it being invariant!