On 9/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am informed by a nice chap on #wikipedia that they've now released the draft GFDL v2:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html [snip] I won't have a chance to read it for a while - anyone want to go through it?
I do, I do, though only a quick look for tonight.
For starters, there's a new SFDL (simplified free documentation license). It has no provisions for cover texts and invariant sections. And best of all, under the new GFDL v2: "If the Work has no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections then you may relicense the Work under the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License."
So this means that Wikipedia, since it is licensed under GFDL v1.2 or any later version (according to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], anyway), can be relicensed under GFDL v2 and then rerelicensed under the SFDL (one step, two steps, whatever, it can be done).
So I'm going to ignore the new GFDL, and focus on the new SFDL, because presumably Wikipedia will want to take advantage of this relicensing.
OK, first off in terms of changes is the removal of the requirement to include a copy of the license for verbatim copies. Instead, we have this: "You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered the work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server through which the general public can find out its license." I don't know what this means, actually, so maybe someone can explain it. Maybe the FSF intends to run one such agency/network? If so, sounds good so far, I guess.
HOWEVER, this is in the section for verbatim copies. The later section for modified copies still says to "H. Include an unaltered copy of this License." Is this a mistake, or is it intentional? We'll have to ask during the discussion period, but considering the section on "excerpts" it seems to be intentional.
There is still a requirement for forks to "Use a title distinct from that of the Work, and from those of previous versions of the Work as listed in the History section." This is problematic if you consider an individual article as "the Work", and not Wikipedia (or the English language Wikipedia) as a whole. Interestingly, the statement that "You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission." has been dropped. Hopefully this is a mistake.
"Title page" has been redefined. It now reads "The "Title Page" means the portion of the work where information such as title, authors, date of publication, and copyright notice would normally appear." So no longer, it seems, will a Wikipedia article be considered to have a title page (it was previously defined as "the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text"). This is significant because two of the requirements for distribution of a modified copy are "List as authors (on the Title Page, if any), one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version." and "Credit (on the Title Page, if any) at least five of the principal authors of the Work (all of them, if it has fewer than five) if the material derived from the Work is more than 1/4 of the total." This was a place where Wikipedia was previously not in compliance with the GFDL, and now it seems they would be.
"Authors and publishers of previous versions can release you from above requirements to cite or refer to them or their versions." This is a good addition, although it should probably be spelled out better *how* this release is done, so that there isn't any ambiguity as to whether or not it has been.
"You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to 20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in electronic form, or up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute of audio or video, as an Excerpt. An Excerpt follows the applicable rules of this license, except that the following required materials--the copy of this license, title page materials, historical copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and any required sections--may be replaced by one or more publicly accessible URLs referring to the same materials." This is a wholly new section. A minute of audio seems too short, though. Presumably almost all images released under the GFDL would be completely exempt as they wouldn't have 20,000 characters of text in them. That's good too.
Overall, it looks like a major improvement. I'll take a closer look tomorrow, and hopefully some more people will have already commented by then (and hopefully my email will have gotten through the moderation queue by then).
Anthony