GerardM wrote:
Hoi,
It is not that obvious at all. When software needed to make use of data is
available without any kind of discrimination, it should suffice. At some
stage I created an 80 Mb database in Microsoft Access. Would you deny that I
could make this data available under the GFDL ?? I gave it to people, who
also had Access, and they were happy to have it. Now when you can convince
me that I did not have the right to make it available to them under the
GFDL, I will inform them about this and you can explain to them why they are
not entitled to use my data and/or you can explain to me why they can do
whatever they like with my data because they are not validly restricted by a
license.
My intention in this was clear, I wanted these people to have it and I
wanted to make sure that it stayed available under the conditions as I
understood them. This meant do what you like, but you cannot sell it to
someone else. If GFDL data can only be used with Free Software, if it is
not permitted to change the format of the data and extend it when this makes
sense for a particular application, it would mean to me that the argument
that the Wikimedia Foundation happened at the wrong time because a liberal
license was not available has gained weight.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/23/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 7/23/07, GerardM
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
the
problems with opaque as terminology used.
Thanks,
GerardM
There are differing interpretations of what a transparent format is
(most of which are pretty obviously incorrect), but distributing more
than 100 copies on paper without providing any digital copy at all
pretty clearly violates the requirement to have a machine readable
copy.
It's also pretty clear that the license intends that copies encoded in
proprietary patented formats to be considered opaque copies, even if
some lawyer might be able to successfully argue otherwise.
On 7/23/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
> On 7/23/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I have the idea that you are making projecting issues of the GPL on
>>
the
>> GFDL. The GPL insists that you have to
provide source code. As far
>>
as I
can
> see, the GFDL does not.
>
The GFDL requires you to distribute transparent copies if you
distribute more than 100 copies. "If you publish or distribute Opaque
copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either
include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque
copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location
from which the general network-using public has access to download
using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of
the Document, free of added material."
<blockquote>A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a
machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is
available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the
document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images
composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some
widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to
text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats
suitable for input to text formatters.</blockquote>
Basically that is the document equivalent of "source code".
> This is reasonable because a book can be published
> on paper under the GFDL. It is not necessary to provide a digital
>
version as
> well.
>
If you distribute more than 100 copies, it is.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, remember, the copyright holder can break the license. If I write
GPL software, and distribute a binary copy without source code, that's
fine. On the other hand, -you- can't do that, you have to provide binary
and source, since you wouldn't be the copyright holder. Same type of
thing with the GFDL-as the copyright holder, you can grant anyone you
like an exception to your license, including yourself. (I also doubt
that you distributed over 100 copies.)
However, there is a clear intent in the GFDL that open specifications
must be used. If a format is locked and proprietary, it is not GFDL
compliant for widescale distribution, and it's not supposed to be. I
don't see that as any sort of onerous restriction, it's part of the
requirement that GFDL material be modifiable. I don't have Access. I
could borrow a Windows machine, I suppose, but even then I'd have to buy
it in order to do what the license says I'm supposed to be inherently
allowed to-modify that file. On the other hand, if it's in an open
format, I don't have to do that. I can use whatever software has been
developed for my OS, or can even look at the spec and develop my own.
Now, I have the -real- ability to modify and copy the file, as opposed
to the theoretical one. That's why closed == bad, and that's why both
GPL and GFDL take steps to prohibit its use on open content.