As stated in your link 17.000 Wikimedia/Wikipedia authors voted on it with 75 % being in favour of the license change.
Right. Small percentage of Wikipedia copyright holders held a vote and even among them about 10% (that's over thousand copyright-holders, remember?) voted against said change. Without FSF's power to unilaterally change the license they faced lengthy (probably multi-year) process with uncertain outcome. They convinced FSF to apply it's power and bam: opinion of over thousand people about how their work can be used went to the wolves.
The FSF was just an accomplice in that plot originating in the Wikimedia communities as it had the power to allow licensing changes through the 'or later' clause.
Indeed. Note that votes, opinions and all other stuff was only needed to convince FSF, FSF had no need for any votes to change the license. It could have made it even if votes showed that two guys are for the change and 1698 are against.
P.S. Note that I'm not saying that this change was bad. I'm saying that it was made against of express wishes of sizable chunk of copyright holders. Recall how long it took for the Dell to overcome Icahn's opposition - and this is in case where deeds are supposed to be done by vote while Icahn only had 6% of voting power. With copyright you are not supposed to vote. Indeed, when nine lines were included in Android against Sun (and Oracle) wishes they raised racked to the sky, won the argument and only failed to convince court that incorrectly appropriated nine lines are worth billions. Yet FSF or CC can do such changes relicensing twice per day (if that'll be their wish) and nobody can say anything at all.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds