GNU FDL changes
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Wed Dec 5 22:48:30 UTC 2007
> > [...] You can't reuse an article safely without attaching the
> > entire GFDL. [...]
> > That applies to all copyright licenses, the GPL included.
> It doesn't apply to CC-by-sa.
> Indeed it does. It is the whole point of a license, you cannot know
> the license terms if you cannot see the license.
> | * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to
> | others the license terms of this work. The best way to
> | do this is with a link to this web page.
Er, no. A link to the licence web page is not including a copy of
the whole licence. That's the point of CC-by-sa being considered a
more sensible idea for Wikipedia than the present GFDL, which is
technically "free" but is monstrously ill-suited to it.
And you can do exactly the same thing with a GFDL work. For example,
| A copy of the license is can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gfdl.txt
instead of:
| A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
| Documentation License.''
> Attaching the entire GFDL 1.2 text is not meaningfully "free" for
> photos or single-page texts. And how do you reasonably implement it
> for a motion picture.
> This would fall under fair use. But I fail to see what a motion
> picture has to do with this, if you use a copyrighted work, you have
> to note that, and its license.
No, you're answering something other than what I wrote. Wikimedia
Commons includes images and motion pictures under the GFDL. The
originals don't include the entire licence in the movie itself; how is
this to be meaningfully reused? The answer in practice is "it isn't" -
the licence fails in practice at reusability.
See above.
More information about the Discussion
mailing list