On 10/17/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license, they must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.
But whats the purpose of a copyleft license if the recipient is not made aware of their rights?
Your usage of the word viral to refer to the requirement that the license come along is non-standard and still misleading (you can't gain the requirement to carry the GFDL accidentally), but it makes more sense than any of the other arguments that copyleft licenses are viral. :)
The GFDL 2 draft includes language which would wave the requirement for 'small' amounts of copying (up to 20,000 words). This addresses the easiest strawman case where the mandatory included license is substantially longer than the covered work. (also keep in mind that if you distribute multiple GFDLed works, you need only distribute one copy of the license).
I should mention that while I expected the requirement to include the license to be a primary factor in people's interest in licensing my works under other terms, I've found that not to be the case... In the cases where I've asked, one was because it was worth their money to get the work under their standard agreement, and in another was because their lawyers opinion is that a license grant without fair and reasonable compensation is on shaky legal grounds.
I no longer believe that the GFDL is substantially better than CC-By-SA for the purpose of re-licensing opportunity. ... although I personally will not use any of the Creative Commons licenses until they stop making actually free content roadkill on the path to their own popularity. (Don't bother flaming me for criticizing Creative Commons unless you can clearly articulate how Freesounds (http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/) isn't a complete licensing travesty :) )