>> Che poi wikipedia e` stata cosi` ingenua da prendere la fdl (come me, >> stessi anni) e la fsf sapendo di aver sbagliato ha permesso di >> cambiare. Brutta storia, meglio non rivangare, meglio.
> guarda che la FSF non può permettere il cambio di licenza. Ma tramite "or any later version" ha il potere assoluto su chi ha scelto questa clausola. E ha permesso a wikipedia di fuggire da GFDL. Rivanghiamo, visto che non mi si crede. > Nel caso di wikipedia è stato possibile fare il cambio di licenza, o > meglio permettere una doppia licenza, perché il detentore del copyright > è wikipedia stessa ai contributori è chiesto di cedere tutti i diritti > alla fondazione per poter contribuire. All'inizio non era cosi`, gli autori mantenevano il copyright. Adesso non lo so, posso credere che sia ceduto (che non e` bellissimo). Consiglio di leggere il buo corbet: https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ Cito la parte importante: On November 3 [2008], the FSF and the Wikimedia Foundation jointly announced the release of version 1.3 of the GFDL. This announcement came as a surprise to many, who had no idea that a new GFDL 1.x release was in the works. This update does not address any of the well-known complaints against the GFDL. Instead, it added a new section: An MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site] is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008. The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing. In other words, GFDL-licensed sites like Wikipedia have a special, nine-month window in which they can relicense their content to the Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. This works because (1) moving to version 1.3 of the license is allowed under the "or any later version" terms, and (2) relicensing to CC-BY-SA is allowed by GFDL 1.3. Legal codes, like other kinds of code, have a certain tendency to pick up cruft as they are patched over time. In this case, the FSF has added a special, time-limited hack which lets Wikipedia make a graceful exit from the GFDL license regime. This move is surprising to many, who would not have guessed that the FSF would go for it. Lawrence Lessig, who calls the change "enormously important," expresses it this way: Richard Stallman deserves enormous credit for enabling this change to occur. There were some who said RMS would never permit Wikipedia to be relicensed, as it is one of the crown jewels in his movement for freedom. And so it is: like the GNU/Linux operation system, which his movement made possible, Wikipedia was made possible by the architecture of freedom the FDL enabled. One could well understand a lesser man finding any number of excuses for blocking the change. For whatever reason, Stallman and the FSF chose to go along with this change, though not before adding some safeguards. The November 1 cutoff date (which precedes the GFDL 1.3 announcement) is there to prevent troublemakers from posting FSF manuals to Wikipedia in their entirety, and, thus, relicensing them. Questi sono fatti, anche se conditi con qualche opinione. La FSF ha permesso il cambio di licenza a Wikipedia (credo sia perche` altrimenti il danno di immagine sarebbe stato peggiore). Il cambio di licenza di OSM, invece, ha richiesto la rimozione di un po' di materiale perche` non tutti i detentori dei diritti lo hanno accettato. Brutte storie i cambi di licenza, ma ancora piu` brutto e` rifiutare di assegnare il diritto d'autore per poi scrivere "or any later version", che ha quasi lo stesso effetto, ma piu` nascosto. Si, queste sono opinioni, immagino non tutti siano d'accordo.