Has anyone ever gotten a straight answer from licensing@fsf.org about GFDL queries? I have never even heard of an answer from them that isn’t their Magic 8-Ball imitation. “Reply hazy, read the license text and ask your own lawyer.” Our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt. YOU WROTE THE DAMN THING. WHAT DID YOU MEAN? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ANSWER ME!
In fairness, the FSF contact page says licensing@fsf.org will help with “questions about the GPL and free software licensing.” Even the FSF has given up trying to make sense of the GFDL. The new version can’t happen soon enough.
(Provoked by asking for help with the reuse FAQ and the likely utter unfeasibility of audio versions of GFDL text. The latter is one of the best arguments I can think of for running screaming to CC-by-sa as absolutely soon as possible and throwing the GFDL into a fire.)
Come on, it’s not the FSF’s fault that Wikipedia uses GFDL.
Any idea how long before we can swap between GFDL & CC-by-sa?
@LA2: I vaguely recall talk of RMS starting a competing project if we didn’t go GFDL. (The CC licenses didn’t exist then.) I don’t have a link to hand.
@Chriswaterguy: GFDL 1.3 is due out really soon, dunno if that’ll include CC-by-sa compatibility as yet.