Talk:GFDL suggestions

As I understand the current situation, FSF will probably in the future change the text of the GFDL to allow a port of the license of massively collaborated works to another license, e.g. CC-BY-SA, which might have less problems than the GFDL. The sensible thing to do, imho, would be to draft a Wikimedia License, so the Wikimedia Foundation would have control over the text of the license, and can incorporate anything in that license that fits Wiki(media) projects. For example the suggested style of citing a Wikipedia article, including the way mirrors can reuse Wikipedia content and how they should attribute. Dedalus 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very out of date[edit]

Shouldn't this page be updated? I thought that Erik Moeller successfully drove through a license migration/adaptation in 2009, even though about 10% of those surveyed said they expressly did not want their GFDL license modified to include Creative Commons. But, it is what it is, and it certainly seems like this page should be updated... or is Meta somehow on a different licensing parameter than English Wikipedia? -- Thekohser 21:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]