Cc-uk mailing list

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Tom Chance <tom AT acrewoods.net>:

> Is it the 'invariant sections' clause of the FDL that makes this a 
> problem for
> you, or some other legal technicality?

Invariant sections are not a technicality in the minimising sense of the word.
:-)

The invariant sections clause means my work can be combined with 
immutable work
that I cannot then re-use. This breaks my copyleft intent and the copyleft
"social contract" (ie you can "cash out", or exploit work without return). It
also means my work can be modified to fit with and directly combined with work
that I cannot then do the same to (again breaking the "social contract" by
removing some forms of critique, discourse, and collaborative generation of
value).

Then there's the transparent form clause. No MP3s or DVDs can be 
converted from
BY-SA to FDL, but SVGs can.

And CC-US imposing this new clause on currently licenced work by trying 
to claim
it is part of an existing clause is a mis-use of power and a betrayal 
of trust &
responsibility.

If I want my work licenced FDL I will licence my work FDL.

> They mention in their blog entry on this [1] that they "will be working with
> as many representatives from the free culture movement as we can to build
> this federation of free licenses".

Yes, the Free Art Licence people are looking to get involved I think.

> If they managed to get the GNU FDL changed  to state compatibility, 
> would that be better?

If two licences are exactly the same then they are the same licence. 
:-) If FDL
and BY-SA have any meaningful differences, then an individual may have good
reason for choosing between them.

You know Stallman's position on misrepresentation of political speech. A
compatible FDL would be a new FDL, or an FDL with a "sticky bit" on no
invariant sections, which would amount to the same thing.

> Just trying to think through how I might respond to this, and what we should
> be aiming for on the long run. I'm certainly very concerned about license
> incompatibility... copyright is complicated enough for ordinary people as it
> is, without lots of incompatible licenses!

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But FDL was not intended for and is 
not suited
to copyleft cultural work. BY-SA is. Wikipedia envy is a terrible thing. :-/

- Rob.