Toby wrote:
.... Encyclopaedias and textbooks have a quite different style, and I'd argue that any text that isn't completely rewritten is a mistake. ...
The difference in style is primarily organizational and related to focus. That means that a great many sections of Wikipedia articles can used in a textbook. To abandon the GFDL and thus ignore the largest open content text resource in the world is a grave mistake.
I've already mentioned /several/ times now that our long-term goal should be to work with the writers of the various copyleft viral licenses to make them compatible with each other whereever possible. For example, all that would be needed from the GNU and Creative Common people to make their respective copyleft viral licenses compatible would be for both of them to make new versions that explicitly state that text from the other corresponding copyleft viral license is compatible. That would make it possible for GNU FDL text to be incorporated into Creative Commons Share Alike text and vice versa.
Until then we are stuck with the GNU FDL (and I have yet to see a compelling argument to abandon that).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
I've already mentioned /several/ times now that our long-term goal should be to work with the writers of the various copyleft viral licenses to make them compatible with each other whereever possible.
Please don't think that I'm ignoring this. I agree wholeheartedly!
Until then we are stuck with the GNU FDL (and I have yet to see a compelling argument to abandon that).
But this is simply false. You are stuck with the GNU FDL /if/ you use GNU FDL material. Did you read my proposal about a disjunctive licence? Such a licence is compatible with the GNU FDL! And once you use GNU FDL material, then you're stuck with the GNU FDL. Similarly, once you use Creative Commons SA material, then you're stuck with the relevant Creative Commons licence. But not until then.
For examples of disjunctive licences (but for software), see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html and search for the string "disj" (not a whole word). A disjunctive licence is as free as its freest component and as strong a copyleft as its weakest component.
If a textbook project that wants to use material from Wikipedia, then it can make a decision that it wants this material more than the mere possibility of material under some other licence. If you have a specific use in mind for a large chunk of text, then this shouldn't be a very difficult choice to make! Then this project will use the GNU FDL just like you want. It will hardly be ignoring Wikipedia as a resource!
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org