Re: can Wikipedia apply "CC-BY-SA-compatible FDL" retroactively?
At 12:52 PM 8/10/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
> > since they both required derivative works to be published under the
> > same license. Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
> > or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
> > and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
>Indeed, they require both require new versions to be under the same
>license as the original, and GFDL isn't the same as CC-BY-SA 3.0, thus
>they are incompatible. In spirit, they're pretty similar, but they
>have to exactly the same license (up to version numbers, at least) for
>them to be interchangeable.
Thanks. So just to be clear, does that mean it's still technically
illegal to copy an article from Wikipedia and republish it under
CC-BY-SA? But once an FDL version is released that's compatible with
CC-BY-SA, it'll no longer be illegal?
(So, for people to start copying Wikipedia content to Knol,
presumably two things would have to happen -- Knol would have to
allow CC-BY-SA as a publishing option, and FDL would have to be
revised to be CC-BY-SA-compatible.)
Since it was announced in December 2007 that they planned to make the
FDL compatible with CC-BY-SA, does that mean they're still working on
it? Are their pro bono lawyers just really careful with things like
this, so they usually take a long time before coming out with a new
version of FDL that meets a specific goal?