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! *
*************************************************