I had a question about complying with the GFDL in medium-print-run, subset-of-Wikipedia distribution efforts. Say someone wanted to distribute a few Wikipedia articles in connection with some event---the one that came to mind would be distributing some information about Greek culture together with a local Greek festival, but there are plenty of other possibilities. Now, the GFDL requires that if you distribute more than 100 copies of a document, you must also distribute the source (i.e. wikitext) version of the document, and the text of the GFDL itself. I don't see a good way to do this on a smallish pamphlet (say, 5 pages): the text of the GFDL itself would nearly double the size of the pamphlet. The wikitext version is permitted to be distributed electronically (i.e. "see http://blah/ for a source version of this document"), but even that is somewhat onerous, as a small organization may not have the resources or interest in maintaining a mirror of the documents it distributes for the required year. Notably, pointing to wikipedia.org is not sufficient---the GFDL requires that the person doing the distribution maintain an exact source mirror of the document exactly as distributed, "free of added material", and including any changes, so "derived from the Wikipedia article [here]" would not be enough. In googling to see how people handled this, I came across Wikitravel, which has a lengthy rant on somewhat similar issues, and they concluded that the GFDL is simply impractical for pamphlet-type distribution [http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/Wikitravel:Why_Wikitravel_isn't_GF…]FDL]. Hopefully there are more creative solutions though, as it would be a shame to be unable to use Wikipedia material in pamphlets for logistical reasons. So really to summarize, my questions are: --- Do I really have to print the full text of the GFDL? It's not a very short document relative to a small pamphlet. --- Do I really have to make available the exact source of my pamphlet? Thanks for any suggestions, Mark