--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Should any contributors show up who don't want their material distributed under CC-BY-SA, you just ask them what text in current articles was written by them, and you delete it. I expect the scale to be minuscule. The term "derivative work" occurs in both licenses and its meaning cannot be changed by a license text; it's defined by law and by the courts. --Axel ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

On 9/9/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Surely GFDL images can be kept in CC-BY-SA articles under the same doctrine that allows putting CC-BY-SA images in GFDL articles.

On 9/9/07, Axel Boldt <axelboldt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Just off the top of my head I can think of one former user who claims to have revoked the GFDL and had 5705 edits. That alone is beyond what I'd call "minuscule".

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Just as legal as the opt-out copyright infringement of the Internet Archive, which to my knowledge has never been sued. In any event, I don't think it's important to follow legal rules just for the sake of formality; the only thing that matters is whether your actions are ethical and how likely it is that you can be successfully sued over them. --Axel ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/

On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: WMF is not a publisher so it's rights are irrelevant. Wikipedia documents are within the GFDL as long as you consider the entire document (the article text, the history and various other bits) rather than a single page. I suspect there are also at least two different ways of doing it. -- geni

On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Strangely the GFDL does not state the the title page and history page cannot be the same thing. -- geni

On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Nope because the title page is not a "A section "Entitled XYZ" " it is somewhat different from other requirements in that respect. -- geni

On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: But it can be. As long as the section Entitled History continues to do it's job as well it can also be the title page depending on a couple of factors. -- geni

On 10/09/2007, Axel Boldt <axelboldt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_archive#Automatically_entered_contrac… They for the most part rely on good will to avoid being sued. I would rather not strech what good will we have further than absolutely required. We don't. We follow them to have a shot at createing free content. In this case I would go for near certian. -- geni

Gwern Branwen wrote: Well, there's an official draft of the FDLv2 that contains a relicensing-to-SFDL provision: http://gplv3.fsf.org/fdl-draft-2006-09-22.html That was posted about a year ago with no official updates since then, but that the FSF did release an official draft with that clause is a pretty good indication IMO that it's being seriously pursued. -Mark

Despite all legal objections raised to Axels proposal I do sympathize with his intentions. This summer I tried to write a hiking route, illustrated with pix of the plants en route. Most photos I could provide from my own walk along those trails, but for some I tried to find some on commons. Inclusion of 1 or 2 photos from commons would force me to publish the entire 3 page description under GFDL, instead of CC-BY-SA, <stress>and</stress> include a n-page complete GFDL text. Very unpracticle. Note that GFDL has no provision for these practical problems. The newer "simple GFDL" and GFDL3 seem to have the same requirements. They are as contagious as GFDL. (something probably considered an advantage by many hardcore adherents on this list). I gladly read Eric Moeller statements that this issue has the attention of the foundation. I would like to suggest one way for a gradula change here. Make a list of all "free licenses": For all new article, started from some to be dertermined date in the future, all articles are releases under all this new licenses. Yes, this appraoch had problems too, especially with merging articles. But if the growth of wikipedia continues, the new multilicensed articles will in a few years time outnumber and probably dwarf the old "GFDL only" articles. Imho multilicensing our texts and media provides users with the greatest freedom. i wish you health and happiness, teun spaans On 9/10/07, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Thank you. On 9/11/07, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It is an openoffice document, not a webpage. I had inserted a link for the time being, bit i think the GFDL text requires me to provide the full text, not just a link. Also, if the camping site which serves as a starting point wants to provide their visitors with printed copies, the GFDL requires them to put the GFDL prominently on the titlepage AND provide the full text in print. All this is just al illustration of my opinion that the GFDL is a highly impractical license, and that we would do well to accept other licenses instead of or alongside GFDL. That's why commons suggests using a dual GFDL Cc-by-sa for the images. Also, not all photos of commons are GFDL. We probably have as many Public Domain images as GFDL (and there're also many CC). You had bad luck with the license of those 2 images you needed. Moreover, you can always ask the author to (re)license it, either with a generic CC license, or giving you permission to use it on the route. I see no sensible reason he wouldn't accept to do it. Maybe i had bad luck with these images, but i guess more than half of those i browsed through were GFDL only. Maybe i'll do a count this weekend. Yes, I could try to ask the original uploaders - but we dont provide images for the sole purpose so that users should still approach the original owners. We try ro provide FREE content. Perhaps we should allow GFDL at commons as a license alongside CC-BA, just as we allow ADRM2 alongside a free license, and disable the GFDL only license at commons. A radical measure, i admit. _______________________________________________

On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels &lt;andreengels(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I would dissagree. No WMF is a service provider. Publisher is the author. See that notice at the end of the article Publisher is the author. Title is the version title. -- geni

Thomas Dalton wrote: You should correct that misconception wherever you find it. There are important legal considerations and issues surrounding the Foundation's liability if they are deemed a publisher. The Foundation publishes very little; it is the *contributors* who use servers and resources provided by the Foundation who publish. You don't hold a company who offers free blog space responsible as a publisher, and the Foundation relies on the same provisions to protect them from being sued. Brian McNeil

Thomas Dalton wrote: framework. You could liken it to free web hosting surrounding your content with adverts to generate revenues. In no way does the Foundation vet the published content; that is all done by the community. There's not a huge amount of policy set from Board level (eg NPOV), but I believe these are like a free web host having a "no porn" rule. Brian McNeil

That's a very significant difference. It doesn't say "a provider which is not a publisher", it just says "a provider". Based on that, I would say the WMF is the publisher of Wikipedia, but it isn't liable as publisher for user generated content.

On 11/09/2007, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: It's not really a choice we can make. The WMF is what it is. If that is a publisher, then so be it. If it isn't, then great. We can't decide.

On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels &lt;andreengels(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The history page. On the history page. So what? No requirement for a copyright notice to do that. Since they are all identical it is a bit hard to say. Version title is stated. nothing in the licsense says how publisher has to be labled as such just have to mention them. -- geni

The title page is the page with the title on it. If we consider the title to be the permanent url for the revision in question (which we need to if it's going to count as changing each edit) then the title page *is* the history page. If the publisher is the WMF (which I think it is), then the line at the top of every page saying "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is a statement of the publisher. It doesn't use the word "publisher", but I think "From" is close enough, and it says "Wikipedia" not "Wikimedia" but that can be dismissed as an alias (or trading name, or whatever you want to call it). Most people don't know the distinction between Wikipedia and WMF, so Wikipedia is, in common usage, at least, an alias for Wikimedia.

That quote is only for works without a separate title page. If we define the history page to be the title page, then it doesn't matter where it is. Anyway, it's the only appearance of the work's title under this definition of title, so it must be the most prominent. So we've broken the license and glued it back together in a different order - it'll do.

2007/9/11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Well, it's true. We don't force people things. They also have the choice to not copy our content. But I thought that the idea of using the GFDL is that others can use Wikipedia material. And anyone who wants to do that *is* forced to keep to the GFDL. And then I repeat: If we, as a large website that is fully under the GFDL, feel unable to adhere to the license, then how on earth can we ask on others like Teun that they DO adhere to it? -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

2007/9/11, Bryan Tong Minh &lt;bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Indirectly the WMF is forcing it to others by requiring it for use on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org> changed or Wikipedia changed. Falsely claiming the content to be some Now, there I agree. However, neither seems likely to happen. And even if it happens, it does not change that the GFDL is simply unpractible for works that are of the length of a typical Wikipedia page rather than a full book. See here what it would look like if I would like to publish a wikipedia stub page with a little change: Centreville, Lennox and Addington County, Ontario (v. 2) 128.117.21.181, 128.117.21.132, 192.16.250.130, Thivier, Smackbot, André Engels and others Published by Andre Engels Copyright (c) 2007 Andre Engels Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". ==Centreville== Centreville, Ontario, Canada according to Wikipedia is a small (pop. ~80), rural village located in Lennox and Addington county. The village is located in the municipality of Stone Mills Township, prior to which the village was a part of Camden East Township. County Road 4 bisects the village, with the only commercial venture, a general store and gas station, located on this main thoroughfare. The Centreville Public School educates roughly 150 students in kindergarten to grade 8. A public fairgrounds, complete with a baseball diamond, stables and grandstand, showcases the annual Centreville Fair. The fair opens on the first Friday of September, and closes by the next day. ==History== * Centreville, Lennox and Addington County, Ontario (v. 2), Andre Engels, 2007, published by Andre Engels (similar to the previous version with some additional text removed and 'according to Wikipedia' added) * (cur) (last) 13:49, 19 July 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (1,059 bytes) (Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:42, 29 June 2007 192.16.250.130 (Talk) (1,038 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 05:41, 14 December 2006 Bearcat (Talk | contribs) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:48, 12 December 2006 Barticus88 (Talk | contribs) m (Disambiguate Store to General store using popups) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:33, 3 June 2006 Mindmatrix (Talk | contribs) (stub sorting -> {{EasternOntario-geo-stub}}) (undo) * (cur) (last) 12:15, 28 February 2006 Bluebot (Talk | contribs) (clean up and bulleting external links using AWB) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:38, 20 January 2006 Bearcat (Talk | contribs) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:42, 26 December 2005 Bobblewik (Talk | contribs) m (Assisted clean up) (undo) * (cur) (last) 22:17, 24 December 2005 Karmafist (Talk | contribs) (undo) * (cur) (last) 14:37, 24 December 2005 Thivierr (Talk | contribs) ({{verify}} - Need official source, or at least source with date on it, to clarify current status of village) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:07, 24 December 2005 Calsicol (Talk | contribs) m (undo) * (cur) (last) 09:50, 24 December 2005 Blackcats (Talk | contribs) m (fix link) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:59, 24 December 2005 R3m0t (Talk | contribs) m (nomination for deletion) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:57, 24 December 2005 R3m0t (Talk | contribs) m (disambig link) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:15, 1 November 2005 Bluebot (Talk | contribs) m (Fixed See also/External links error(s).) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:44, 9 September 2005 128.117.21.132 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:24, 19 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:00, 19 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:30, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:29, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:29, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:28, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:27, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:26, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:20, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:19, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:14, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:10, 18 July 2005 128.117.21.181 (Talk) permanent link to the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… permanent links to earlier versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centreville%2C_Lennox_and_Addingt… ==GNU Free Documentation License== Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. 0. PREAMBLE The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software. We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference. 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law. A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language. A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none. The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words. A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque". Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only. The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text. A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition. The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License. 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3. You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies. 3. COPYING IN QUANTITY If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects. If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages. If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public. It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document. 4. MODIFICATIONS You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission. B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher. D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices. F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below. G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice. H. Include an unaltered copy of this License. I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission. K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein. L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles. M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version. N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section. O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers. If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles. You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard. You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one. The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version. 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers. The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work. In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements". 6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects. You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document. 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate. 8. TRANSLATION Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail. If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title. 9. TERMINATION You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/. Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page: Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this: with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST. If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation. If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Here's a blast from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Nupedia_and_Wikipedia#GFDL_lice… SJ -- +1 617 529.4266 skype: metasj en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sj On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Axel Boldt wrote:

On 11/09/2007, Axel Boldt &lt;axelboldt(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I'd say it's not a legal problem - it's a public relations problem (internal and external). Looking like we're asserting "all your base are belong to us, sue if you don't like it" would appear (and IMO be) extremely rude behaviour. - d.

Brian McNeil wrote: The short answer is that nobody knows. It depends on whether an article containing an image is a "derivative work" of the image. The FSF takes the position that it is; the Creative Commons folk take the position that it isn't; neither position has ever been tested in a court. If you consider each body to be authoritative in interpreting their own license, that would indeed mean that Wikinews can't use GFDL images in non-GFDL articles. That does seem to be the intent of some (but not all) authors who license their images under the GFDL: to prohibit the use (without separate arrangements) of their works in non-GFDL media, like proprietary-licensed newspapers. Whether this interpretation is enforceable and/or should be respected is a matter of debate. -Mark

On 14/09/2007, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Yes ... ... and they said "read the license." - d.

Anthony wrote: IIRC, the Creative Commons folk take the position that publishing two works alongside each other is merely aggregation and doesn't create a derivative. I don't know if this is an Official Position, but it's the consensus on their mailing lists, and I recall it coming up on this list before (anyone have a better pointer?). It seems that they even think that the case of synchronizing music to video is unclear enough to be worth including specific license text about, despite that example being much more entangled than publishing an image alongside an article is. -Mark

Not at all. There is no risk whatsoever. Risk requires uncertainty and your proposition is 100% illegal, there is no uncertainty at all. It's not risky, it's just illegal.

2007/9/11, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Surely a title behind a link that few people ever use is not "a prominent place preceding the the beginning of the body of the text". As for it being available with the author list - given that we don't HAVE an author list as required by the GFDL, that's a hollow phrase. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 11/09/2007, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Quite apart from the "We're the biggest single pile of GFDL content available and that's how we've done it for years with no problems. Lots of mirror sites too with no problems." In the very first litigation ever on a given manner, US judges do take note of common practice. - d.

It all boils down to "the spirit of the license". As long as we don't violate the spirit of the license (which we don't), we should be fine. If not legally, then at least morally.

2007/9/11, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: I don't agree. Either we keep to the license, or we don't. If we don't, then we don't have a moral right to force others to keep to the license either. And then we would do better to switch to CC-BY-SA, or to write our own license that does state what we really want others and ourselves to do. If we have the right to publish things under the GFDL as if they were licensed under CC-BY-SA, then we cannot deny others the right to republish them under CC-BY-SA either. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 9/11/07, Andre Engels &lt;andreengels(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Depends on who is "we". "We" meaning the Wikimedia Foundation has no right force mirrors to comply with the license. WMF is not the copyright holder of the content (except the logos) Only "we" as contributors, as copyright holders have this right, individually. Bryan

teun spaans wrote: The two concepts are built on different premises. Morality is a by-product of philosophical principles. Legality reflects the will of the state. Ec

On 9/12/07, Ben McIlwain &lt;cydeweys(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Who is trolling here ? Slavery was legal and immoral. My question was about things that were illegal. Pls read my question and dont reverse my words. (I know there are exceptional cases in which it is legal/moral to trespass the law (contradictio), but most western laws and jurisdictions have ample provisions for these exceptional situations, so these actions can no longer be considered illegal).

Thomas Dalton wrote: Hmmm! Just like taking someone's intellectual property and freeing it. ;-) The law doesn't necessarily follow morality; it often reflects the self-interest of those in power. Ec

Thomas Dalton wrote: One mustn't allow "Democracy" to lure one into a false sense of security. People in power are resilient and can adapt to changing times -- much more so than the lumpen electorate. What goes on at the upper political levels tends to be beyond the grasp and imagination of most voters who are morally guided by an assumption of good faith. Lobbyists and their ilk like to maintain good relations with both sides of the political fence, knowing that their favourites will not always remain in power. To adapt the words of a famous Canadian third-party politician, T. C. Douglas: When all the candidates are either blue cats or red cats, who are the mice going to vote for? Ec

Hoi, Please stay on topic. Thanks, GerardM On 9/15/07, Ben McIlwain &lt;cydeweys(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Dalton wrote: Sorry, looks like I replied to the wrong email after reading a string in a row. I meant to reply to the following email by "teun spaans":

On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hiding the five primary authors on "the history page" rather than prominently declaring them next to the title is not, in my opinion, de minimis.

On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: For some articles it may be the case that you could argue "look, this person isn't a primary author and wouldn't show up on the title page anyway, therefore s/he has no standing to sue", and you might get away with it. Then again, if that author was one of the first five authors that bit of defense goes quickly out the window.

Hoi, What you have to consider is why people contribute to Wikipedia or any of the other Wikimedia Foundation's projects; people contribute to create some of the greatest free resource on the Internet. Most people do not care at all what license is used; they care for the result. When emotional language like "stealing" is used, you have to consider WHAT is stolen. The original resource is still there and with a CC-by-sa license the content is still available under a license that is viral in nature. The reason for changing the license is honourable; the object of this change is to get rid of the problems that are inherent in a license that was meant to be used for the documentation of software. A license that was not meant for content like we create. Also when you consider the current practice, we do not insist at all on conformceto the requirements as specified in the GFDL. Using emotional language like "stealing" is not only wrong, it is also using the same terminology of the RIAA. Do you really want to compare yourself with them ??? Thanks, GerardM On 9/11/07, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote: To Eric and those interested, You're invited to submit well-reasoned position statements on what licensing scheme the *Citizendium* (http://www.citizendium.org/) should use. See the link for details: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:License_Essays

Under whose interpretation of the GFDL are Wikipedian's joint authors? Each revision is a derivative work based on the previous one, there are no joint authors.

On 11/09/2007, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Surely [selling, relicensing, releasing, whatever] a work of joint authorship requires the consent of [both/all] authors? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Anthony wrote: Apparently this is from http://www.publaw.com/joint.html Further down on that page, "This article is not legal advice". At the top of that page it says "The law of copyright provides that"... without indicating *which* country's copyright law. I might as well guess that this is U.S. law, since the author lives in Denver, Colorado. Can all the amateur lawyers on this list *please* indicate when they are talking of things specific to U.S. law, and keep in mind that the foundation and its projects try to be *international*. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se