Mark Gallagher wrote:
K P schreef:
Which is a pain, yes. As other people have said, the GFDL is not really a convenient license for wikipedia or images, or anything else really. But it is possible to use GFDL'ed content without bending the rules too much.
It strikes me that, for those of us who are not Richard Stallman, GFDL is quite poor for any purpose you'd care to name. But we're stuck with it, I suppose.
I don't think that there is anything satisfactory in the licensing regimes. There probably won't be in the absence of testing in the courts. With CC 3.0 being desperate to make allowances for moral rights, I can't see any resolution coming soon.
There are some very good underlying principles to free licensing, but trying to reconcile it to an international patchwork intellectual property laws leaves everybody tied up in knots. As a result people tend to lose sight of principles. Wikipedia, to its disadvantage, tends to bend over backwards for the sake of being legally compliant; this often leaves me wondering when it will have the courage to resist anything. Resistance should never come recklessly, but there are still times when it is appropriate.
Ec