GFDL 1.3 released

[Mike.lifeguard]

For those who aren't on foundation-l, news has arrived that the
GFDL 1.3 was released, containing the relicensing clause which
could allow us to move to CC-by-sa-3.0
My general impression has been that we think this is a good
thing, and we would discuss it if/when the option arrived. So,
let's start thinking about this some more. I suggest reading the
new bits of the license, the FAQ and perhaps reviewing some
comments on foundation-l if you need background.
I look forward to some fruitful discussion.
-Mike
----
Mike.lifeguard
mikelifeguard-97jfqw80gc6171pxa8y+***@public.gmane.org

[Andrew Whitworth]

This is excellent news, especially for those of us who have been
wishing for license migration for some time now. We all obviously need
to take some time to read over the new version of the license, but if
it's everything we had hoped for, we should probably update 'books to
use this new license instead of the old 1.2 version.

Maybe we should post a copy of the new license at [[b:Wikibooks:GFDL
Version 1.3]] and open up a discussion on the wiki


--Andrew Whitworth

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Mike.lifeguard

Post by Mike.lifeguard
For those who aren't on foundation-l, news has arrived that the
GFDL 1.3 was released, containing the relicensing clause which
could allow us to move to CC-by-sa-3.0
My general impression has been that we think this is a good
thing, and we would discuss it if/when the option arrived. So,
let's start thinking about this some more. I suggest reading the
new bits of the license, the FAQ and perhaps reviewing some
comments on foundation-l if you need background.
I look forward to some fruitful discussion.
-Mike
----
Mike.lifeguard
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

[Mike.lifeguard]

Well, we should use the newest version regardless whether we want to
take the relicensing route (which I think we do) -- someone should
update [[WB:GFDL]].

-Mike


On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:40:17 -0500, "Andrew Whitworth"

Post by Andrew Whitworth
This is excellent news, especially for those of us who have been
wishing for license migration for some time now. We all obviously need
to take some time to read over the new version of the license, but if
it's everything we had hoped for, we should probably update 'books to
use this new license instead of the old 1.2 version.
Maybe we should post a copy of the new license at [[b:Wikibooks:GFDL
Version 1.3]] and open up a discussion on the wiki
--Andrew Whitworth
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Mike.lifeguard

Post by Mike.lifeguard
For those who aren't on foundation-l, news has arrived that the
GFDL 1.3 was released, containing the relicensing clause which
could allow us to move to CC-by-sa-3.0
My general impression has been that we think this is a good
thing, and we would discuss it if/when the option arrived. So,
let's start thinking about this some more. I suggest reading the
new bits of the license, the FAQ and perhaps reviewing some
comments on foundation-l if you need background.
I look forward to some fruitful discussion.
-Mike
----
Mike.lifeguard
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

----
Mike.lifeguard
mikelifeguard-97jfqw80gc6171pxa8y+***@public.gmane.org

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Mike.lifeguard

Post by Mike.lifeguard
Well, we should use the newest version regardless whether we want to
take the relicensing route (which I think we do) -- someone should
update [[WB:GFDL]].

I'm sending this message to Erik too (I know he's subscribed to
textbook-l, but I want to make certain he sees it).

Erik: For clarification, can you answer a few simple and practical questions:

1) Should we update the text at [[b:WB:GFDL]] to use the new GFDL 1.3
text? Is it good for us to stay up-to-date with the most recent text
of the license?
2) Are we going to decide migration to CC-BY-SA on a per-project
basis, or is the WMF going to decide it as a whole?

Thanks,

--Andrew Whitworth

[Erik Moeller]

Post by Andrew Whitworth
1) Should we update the text at [[b:WB:GFDL]] to use the new GFDL 1.3
text? Is it good for us to stay up-to-date with the most recent text
of the license?

There's no harm but also no immediate benefit in doing so. Anyone
accessing the content can already use it under the terms of 1.3, since
re-licensing within the FDL is not restricted to the original
publishing entity.

We'll implement a Wikimedia-wide change if implementing CC-BY-SA is
approved by the community.

Post by Andrew Whitworth
2) Are we going to decide migration to CC-BY-SA on a per-project
basis, or is the WMF going to decide it as a whole?

We'll do it as a whole by means of a community referendum later this
month.. If the referendum fails, we may examine different options.

[Andrew Whitworth]

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Andrew Whitworth
1) Should we update the text at [[b:WB:GFDL]] to use the new GFDL 1.3
text? Is it good for us to stay up-to-date with the most recent text
of the license?

There's no harm but also no immediate benefit in doing so. Anyone
accessing the content can already use it under the terms of 1.3, since
re-licensing within the FDL is not restricted to the original
publishing entity.
We'll implement a Wikimedia-wide change if implementing CC-BY-SA is
approved by the community.

Thanks for the answers Erik! I knew you were the person to ask. I'll
probably upload the new version on a different page
([[b:Wikibooks:GFDL1.3]] for instance) so that the community is aware
of the issue and can talk intelligibly about it.

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Andrew Whitworth
2) Are we going to decide migration to CC-BY-SA on a per-project
basis, or is the WMF going to decide it as a whole?

We'll do it as a whole by means of a community referendum later this
month.. If the referendum fails, we may examine different options.

Okay, that's probably easier then trying to herd the cats at 'books
into ratifying another new policy change. Let's do things that way
instead!

--Andrew Whitworth