Simon Kissane wrote:
So long as we don't start overreach, all we need to is make some simple changes to the GNU FDL, mainly deleting some of the requirements in section 4, such as the five author requirement. Of course, we'd need to get FSF permission to create a modified version of the GNU FDL, but I suspect they'd probably give it to us, so long as we didn't call it the FDL, and we acknowledged it as originating with them.
I don't think we need a new version for this. I think this can be handled by simply saying that we grant additional permissions.
One oddity here is that although keeping an indefinite amount of history will help with the 5 author problem, we really don't even know or keep the *names* of the authors, only at best their *handle*. Perhaps that's sufficient?
I can't imagine anyone seriously complaining about this.
I am planning to create my own modification of the FDL as a demonstration, and post it to see peoples reactions. I probably shouldn't post a modified version, even though it would only be to gather comments, since copyright on the FDL doesn't allow it, until I get permission from the FSF. (I have emailed RMS to ask him.)
That's sort of funny, isn't it?
The problem here is, what if two hundred people have each made one edit to an article. Under the FDL, if I want to post that article anywhere else, or print it, I'd have to post the log as well.
I like the idea of not acknowledging the authors of articles. I think it emphasises the collective and communal nature of Wikipedia. In fact, I personally would rather not be acknowledged. But the FDL as it stands seems to force such acknowledgement.
I agree with you about the spirit of acknowledgement. The article history, with authors listed, is a useful technical tool in trying to appease all sides in any dispute. But I try hard personally not to think of any page as "my" page, except perhaps [[Jimbo Wales]], which will be moved into a separate namespace someday.
This would cause problems for my proposal to modify the FDL license, since we'd probably need their permission to distribute their material under a different license. But if its significantly similar to the FDL, I think we'd have a good chance.
Yes, with *them*, but not necessarily with *us*. We already have hundreds or thousands of authors, most of whom we have no way of contacting, and some people who we *can* contact may object strongly to any change of license of any kind.
And I doubt we are following the terms of the FDL at present anyway in so far as including FOLDOC materials goes.
You are probably right, but I hope I'm not boring anyone by repeating myself that any violations we have right now are unintentional and will be corrected as soon as we can figure out exactly what to do. :-)
---- ************************************************* * http://www.wikipedia.com/ * * You can edit this page right now! * *************************************************