Karl Wick wrote:
The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as
it stands is that it demands that any work that
uses any of its content must be released under
the same GNU FDL license.
Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And
the viral
nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a
proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.
However there are other open content licences
out there that people will be using. So, if some day
down the road anyone wants to mix content from a
Creative Commons license or any other license at
all, the work must be released under the GNU
license.
And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text
under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every
other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned
that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license
writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html
So any work I do on a textbook will be limited
to only GNU versions.
No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version
on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under
the GNU FDL.
It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to
be in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible
with all other sources and licenses, including all other
open content licenses that I am familiar with.
Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?
Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software,
not open content.
Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.
And remember that even RMS says that it may
not be the ideal license for open content.
He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that
"We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also,
using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License
(GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the
licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the
GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?
One solution I see would be to create a special
version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or
just for Wikipedia.
For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.
That way we could decide for ourselves without
needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.
Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a
chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot
be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique
copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.
And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project
under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole
purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that
can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.
Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative
Commons ones.
? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have
over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written
specifically for documention.
Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
unmixable forks of content.
And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is no
magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content
is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far
the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and
try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the
licenses.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)