"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au wrote:
My advice would be to convince the copyright holder to re-license the work under something more sane, like the GPL v2. That, at least, doesn't require the license terms to be included in the redistributed work.
We're talking about Wikipedia GFDL text, so that's not going to happen. [...]
Jimmy Wales has approved relicensing from one set of FDL terms to another in the past, so it could happen... or maybe it would be too embarrassing or controversial to play fast-and-loose again now. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002335.html
We already have spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. These would presumably be a copyright violation if not right there on Wikipedia [...]
Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). There's probably other special cases too.
Little is clear-cut where copyright is concerned. :-(