Comments:GNU project releases new version of license to allow Wikimedia projects to switch to Creative Commons license

Was the FSF right to make the change, or was the move a serious moral mistake and breach of trust?Edit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


I hope the license does changeEdit

It would make things more simple to share across projects and I think the CC license is easier to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.24.137 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"moral mistake" ?Edit

i don't get it. why a moral mistake ? —195.49.248.147 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because, unlike with the GPL 3 and the Artistic license, they didn't just change the license to say "These two licenses are different ways of saying the same thing", they changed it to say "Within this brief span of time, people who meet these criteria (insert description of the Wikimedia foundation) may re-license the content without the explicit permission of the authors."
To paraphrase a friend of mine, this is the last time I'll ever trust (he said "use") the "or any later version" clause. This just makes me worry how easily someone else might bribe the FSF into re-licensing my GPLed code without asking me. --76.10.136.172 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad change, but I agree that the process behind it is murky at best. This is a prime example of why you should always specify a specific version of the license that you are using, in order to avoid possible future... actions. Gopher65talk 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
True, though that does come with its own flaws since, without copyright reassignment, it becomes necessary to contact everyone for a license upgrade... and that can be difficult. Aside from the attitude implied, I think my biggest complaint is that they didn't just add a permanent compatibility the way they did with GPL 3. I hate time-sensitive, expired cruft in legal documents. --76.10.136.172 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A step forwardEdit

Since the clause expires it allows Wikimedia and friends to relicence their articles to (what would appear to be) an even more free license and then reverts back to the old format. The copyright holders of works should always be able to relicense as they please (although I understand the logistical problems with going from a free to a restricted license). ---Eric 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)