On 6/30/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In practice,
this is how people are already
interpreting the GFDL. I am aware of very few mirrors who credit the
authors rather than simply crediting "Wikipedia" and linking to the
original article.
I made it clear in my email that I was already aware of the wikipedia
copyright page, and it's lack of strict conformance with the GFDL. I
mentioned it clearly and specifically and quite frankly I am somewhat
offended that you paid my message little enough credit or attention
that you failed to notice this.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't not notice it. I just wanted
to clarify it for others on this list. :)
> The only request has been the fairly general one
of making the license
> easier to understand.
Easier to understand is a fair request. However, with
the text "Work
is underway to make the process of reusing the content much simpler.",
you contradict yourself. Which is it?
I see these as the same point. If the license is easier to understand,
reusing the work is much simpler. One problem now is that people
simply don't know how to adhere to the GFDL. There's no simple version
like the CC have with their "human-readable summaries" meaning the
board address frequently gets mails from people asking whether they
can use the work, and what they need to do.
As I said, "and I have great faith that the Free
Software Foundation
would not make unwise changes to later versions of the GFDL", but
specifically I was requesting confirmation that the foundation was not
even *requesting* changes in the future versions which would grant
Wikimedia special rights which a fork of Wikipedia would not have
We're not requesting any changes that would hinder a fork while
benefiting the Foundation. Our aim is to make use of the content
easier, not to make use of the content by forks harder.
I am well aware of this, however, it would be
unacceptable for
Wikimedia to be granted a special right over the material in the fork
simply because Wikimedia hosted the content first.
The fork could choose to maintain the current content under the
current GFDL, so any changes to the license could not guarantee
Wikimedia any rights over that forked content.
Considering my past correspondence with with FSF and
their long term
track record, I would gauge the chance of them approving such a change
to be something near a snowballs chance in hell... Because of this, I
was simply looking for the confirmation that the board wasn't even
trying to request such a thing. If anything your reply has only
increased my concern. As what is almost certainly the single largest
user of the GFDL, and probably one of the most important it would be
foolish to assume we have no clout.
No, we're not trying to request any changes that would grant Wikimedia
additional rights.
If you believe that adding additional terms to a page
separate from
the licence notice that every contributor sees somehow permits the
wikimedia foundation to redefine the GFDL then you are sorely mistaken
and are potentially putting the foundation in a legally precarious
situation.
That isn't what I meant to imply. It might be useful for Jimmy to give
some feedback from his recent meeting with Eben Moglen on this point.
The main issue
here seems to be the next version of the GFDL, which
neither the board nor the Wikimedia community has any control over.
This is inaccurate. As one of the largest users of the GFDL it would
be foolish to deny that we have some degree of influence.
I agree it has influence over it, but that's not the same as control.
Angela.