I have a question about the GFDL and audio recordings of GFDL text (for accessibility, podcasts, etc): how does one comply with the GFDL in an audio version of a text?
Does it really require the entire license also read out?
Are GFDL texts therefore not legally available to the blind, etc?
(We've also asked licensing@fsf.org, but I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this before. Also, a response in less than three months would be useful. Also, if they answer "you should read the licence text and consult your lawyer", I swear I'm going to nuke Boston - our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt.)
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com writes:
I have a question about the GFDL and audio recordings of GFDL text (for accessibility, podcasts, etc): how does one comply with the GFDL in an audio version of a text?
Does it really require the entire license also read out?
This question was raised during the FDL drafting process (but I don't have a reference, sorry), and never satisfactorily addressed. It's yet another area where the FDL effectively makes a work non-free for many uses, and another reason to recommend against its use.
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've also asked licensing@fsf.org, but I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this before. Also, a response in less than three months would be useful. Also, if they answer "you should read the licence text and consult your lawyer", I swear I'm going to nuke Boston - our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt.)
I feel your pain.
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. CC-by-sa compatibility is anticipated in the near future, and GFDL 1.3 in the nearer future, so we could use "or later version" and do a CC-by-sa shuffle. But not right away.
We already have spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. These would presumably be a copyright violation if not right there on Wikipedia (which of course has the GFDL and complete article history linked on every page) - so can't be used elsewhere. Argh.
Does running a Wikipedia article through Festival violate the copyright if you record it? ARGH.
#include <gfdl-sucks-so-much.h>
- d.
"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. :-(
I have a question about the GFDL and audio recordings of GFDL text (for accessibility, podcasts, etc): how does one comply with the GFDL in an audio version of a text?
Does it really require the entire license also read out?
This question was raised during the FDL drafting process (but I don't have a reference, sorry), and never satisfactorily addressed. It's yet another area where the FDL effectively makes a work non-free for many uses, and another reason to recommend against its use.
It is another reason to not recommend it for non-documents; a audio recording isn't a document.
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.
That is a even worse suggestion. How will you distribute the written offer? Because neither 3(a) or 3(c) apply (audio is not source code, or object code).
The GPL was designed for software, audio isn't software, a suitable license free audio license would be be a verbatim only, or a all permissive one.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote: [...]
The GPL was designed for software, audio isn't software, a suitable license free audio license would be be a verbatim only, or a all permissive one.
Audio recordings can be software, and definitely Programs in the sense of the GPL, but I'd suggest an all-permissive licence is simpler too.
Regards,