On 9/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:

I haven't gone through it in detail, but a few things that pop out:

Section 2: Verbatim copies of the entire work now no longer need to include a copy of the GFDL if the redistributors: "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'm not too sure what this means. Do such registries even exist?

I don't think they do, yet. We'll have to wait and see what the FSF says about this.

Section 2: There is new anti-DRM language -- Seems reasonable.

This language is also in version 1.2, though it was *slightly* modified. According to Bruce Perens the old language is a huge flaw which makes it "unlawful to host the wikipedia on a computer running any contemporary operating system". Hopefully he'll comment on the new language, but unfortunately it seems to not have changed in terms of this interpretation.

Section 4, point b: For derived works, the primary author of the modified version must now be listed on the title page, in addition to the previous requirement that the publisher of the modified version be thus listed. -- Not sure what the impetus for this change is, but I don't see a problem with it.

This also was in GFDL v1.2. The language was changed though so that it is only a requirement if there is a title page in the first place. Along with a change to the definition of "title page", it removes the requirement from some works (perhaps even Wikipedia depending on how you apply the GFDL to it).

Section 4, point c: The requirement to credit on the title page the 5 principal authors of the version you derived from is waived if the version you derived from constitutes no more than 1/4 of your derived work. You must still maintain all authors' copyright notices, and the history section, but may put their names somewhere other than the title page in this case. -- Seems reasonable, although I don't care that much either way.

I don't like the language of this part at all. How would this apply to an aggregate, or a collection? What about incremental changes by multiple different people?

Section 6a: Excerpts, defined as anything up to 20,000 characters of text (excluding markup) or 12 normal printed pages, or a minute of audio or video, may have essentially all the required information (license, title page, history, etc.) linked via a URL instead of distributed with the work itself. -- The most relevant to Wikipedia; this would greatly ease publishing things like info sheets and pamphlets. I'd personally be inclined to even up the limits a bit, to maybe 20 pages. Should also be extended to include photographs, IMO.

Well, the *most* relevant to Wikipedia is what I'm going to call the Wikipedia clause:

[8b. WIKI RELICENSING

If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the Work under the GNU Wiki License.]

But yes, this will make things easier for certain reuses of Wikipedia. Things will still be a huge PITA for certain other reuses. For instance, what about audio distributions of Wikipedia articles longer than one minute? If anything this section makes them *more* problematic. At least before you could say that just reading out the URL was an implied permission. But not that it's spelled out for works less than one minute it removes that argument. IOW, audio readings of Wikipedia articles have to include the entire text of the GFDL, presumably read out loud (especially if not distributed digitally where the text perhaps could be embedded in the OGG or whatever).

Anthony