| Advertisement |
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
-

Gray Areas of FTC Guidelines
Although the FTC's new advertising guidelines are scheduled to go... -

Increase Your Conversions with New Tool
According to Tim Ash, President and CEO of SiteTuners, landing page... -

Avoiding Information Overload
Although it originated as a search engine for blogs and microblogs,...
iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising












3 Comments
So, nearly 2,000 people will be screwed
...regardless of their wishes.
I don't understand what gives the right to 13,000 people to decide how to retroactively re-license work of mine that I expressly released under the terms of a previous license.
So, nearly 2,000 people will be getting a dry broomstick where the sun don't shine, and we're supposed to stand back and applaud? Since when is copyright and licensing terms something we "vote" on, anyway?
not under a previous license
Mr. Kohs, you didn't release your work under "a previous license" because Wikimedia was operating under version 1.2 of the GFDL "or any later version" published by the FSF.
Wikimedia's been rather open about the change, considering that it could have been presented to the community unilaterally (as I understand it) rather than through a vote.
...or not
Honestly, Kohs, do you really need to stretch (and widen!) this so far? The Free Software Foundation would never have enabled the change if the licenses weren't so close anyway as you already know. The change doesn't affect the spirit of the licenses and will help prevent future license violations by making it easier to comply with the licensing options.
How this translates to "a dry broomstick where the sun don't shine", to use your POSITIVELY LOVELY metaphor, I have no idea.
Post new comment