Karl Wick wrote:
The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as it stands is that it demands that any work that uses any of its content must be released under the same GNU FDL license.
Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And the viral nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.
However there are other open content licences out there that people will be using. So, if some day down the road anyone wants to mix content from a Creative Commons license or any other license at all, the work must be released under the GNU license.
And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html
So any work I do on a textbook will be limited to only GNU versions.
No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under the GNU FDL.
It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to be in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible with all other sources and licenses, including all other open content licenses that I am familiar with.
Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?
Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software, not open content.
Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.
And remember that even RMS says that it may not be the ideal license for open content.
He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that "We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?
One solution I see would be to create a special version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or just for Wikipedia.
For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.
That way we could decide for ourselves without needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.
Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.
And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.
Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative Commons ones.
? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written specifically for documention.
Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal, unmixable forks of content.
And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is no magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the licenses.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
[This discussion is appearing on both <wikiEN-L> and <textbook-L>. Since my reply concerns the use with textbooks -- where it's still possible to change the licence used -- replies should go to <textbook-L>.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Karl Wick wrote:
The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as it stands is that it demands that any work that uses any of its content must be released under the same GNU FDL license.
Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And the viral nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.
What's the difference between "any work that uses any of its content" and "any derivative work" (besides fair use, which isn't what Karl meant)? It's worth pointing out that in a world with incompatible licences, work licensed under GNU licences are /not/ entirely free (blasphemy!), because freedom 3 (adapting and improving) is restricted. If GNU took over the world, then this wouldn't be an issue; but they haven't and they won't. If the FSF released licences that allowed combination with material under other licences, then this wouldn't be an issue; but they haven't and they won't -- not as long as people keep using their licences anyway.
However there are other open content licences out there that people will be using. So, if some day down the road anyone wants to mix content from a Creative Commons license or any other license at all, the work must be released under the GNU license.
And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html
So any work I do on a textbook will be limited to only GNU versions.
No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under the GNU FDL.
It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to be in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible with all other sources and licenses, including all other open content licenses that I am familiar with.
Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?
Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software, not open content.
Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.
And remember that even RMS says that it may not be the ideal license for open content.
He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that "We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?
One solution I see would be to create a special version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or just for Wikipedia.
For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.
That way we could decide for ourselves without needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.
Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.
And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.
Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative Commons ones.
? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written specifically for documention.
Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal, unmixable forks of content.
And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is no magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the licenses.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The message that I just sent was an old message, out of date, which I never finished and never decided to actually send. I was going through old drafts of mail that I never sent. I did not intend to send it now, so please ignore it.
-- Toby