[Wikipedia-l] FDL used to stifle distribution of articles

[Erik Moeller]

Ulrich-
> Just to put that "threat" in context: There currently is a website
> flexicon.doccheck.com (currently down, I don't know why) in Germany using
> Wikipedia material (either by copying it in the first place by the site
> maintainers or by uploading by Wikipedians), which does not comply to the
> licence (e.g. it does not list authors, it does not even mention Wikipedia).

I already noted that. Of course their behavior is wrong, everyone  
acknowledges that. But we have a specific recommendation for cases like  
these, namely that they should backlink to us. From a pragmatic  
perspective, that's more than good enough. I don't see that you or anyone  
else would gain anything by being listed as a "principal author",  
especially as Wikipedia articles are often the work of hundreds of people  
who make very small but important contributions. A link to the history is  
much more useful, as it shows all authors and also gives users the ability  
to generate diffs. So I see your insistence on this requirement mostly as  
a case of "Let's see if I can find anything in the FDL that will stop them  
from using my articles".

> It's a fact that the license is at it is. We should have choosen a better
> one in the first place, but now we have the GNU FDL and it's likely that we
> have to live with her. The only way for having any changes would be a nother
> version of the license released by the GNU Foundation. (By the way, Erik,
> you cannot just add a statement on the edit pages (releasing from the
> five-author quote thing), since the license does not allow you to modify the
> text then.

Actually, section 4.B specifically says "unless they release you from this  
requirement", and allows modification. Just like the FDL allows creators  
to "opt-out" of cover texts and invariant sections, it allows them to opt  
out of the author list requirement.

> But the license does not allow for hijacking of the material: If one is
> going to use the material in a commercial context, we should insist on our
> rights to keep the content free, to have any derived work free again and to
> have mentioned our effort in developing that content.

All this is meaningfully done by linking to the page history. If it is  
still meaningful enough in a medium that does not allow hyperlinks may be  
a matter of some debate.

>> overly complex license with lots of loopholes
>> for pedants who want to get their way instead of working with the
>> community.

> This is absolutely not what I am doing. And I'm pretty sad about Erik being
> this insulting.

Then stop insisting on a requirement that nobody else agrees is necessary.  
The Net fundamentally depends on openness and mutual cooperation: You have  
to add the FDL notice, but it's sufficient if you link to the history. The  
moment you insist on unreasonable requirements, you become no better than  
the lawyers, politicians and corporations who have eroded the freedom of  
the Net in the past years.

Regards,

Erik