Currently, we require an "invariant section", which means that anybody has to put a specifically formatted HTML table on every page that uses Wikipedia materials, asking people to contribute to Wikipedia. (See below (*) for the rather messy details.)
Here, I want to argue that we should abandon this invariant section.
The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles from them. Two weeks ago, somebody asked me whether the material from our TeX article (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/TeX), which was originally based on FOLDOC's but has since grown considerably, could be reintegrated into FOLDOC. The answer is: only if they put our Wikipedia table into the FOLDOC entry, which they are unlikely to do because it doesn't really fit with their article formatting.
There is a new, exciting and fast growing math encyclopedia at http://planetmath.org; everything is licensed under GFDL without invariant sections, and can therefore be used by us without problems (while acknowledging the source, as we do for FOLDOC articles). I haven't copied anything over yet, but I'm sure I will in the future. People have asked me whether they could take Wikipedia materials and post them on PlanetMath. For articles that I have written exclusively myself, and there aren't many, this is no problem. For others, the Wikipedia invariant table is required, which pretty much excludes them because of the site's particular layout.
These are two examples of the fledgling open content movement that's growing right now. We are currently the clear leader of this movement, but we are not playing very nicely. If everybody required their own invariant sections, cooperation and exchange would become almost impossible. I believe that this movement is ultimately even more important than Wikipedia. We should do everything to foster it, if only out of self-interest.
Even without an invariant section, the GFDL requires proper attribution of all materials. Rather than fretting over the possible evil schemes of big bad corporations, why not apply wiki principles: trust that people are basically good, and that the more freedoms you give them, the better the outcomes will be.
Axel
---- (*) The invariant section requirement is alluded to in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/GNU+Free+Documentation+License, but no link is given. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/wikipedia:copyright contains a "draft" which explicitly disputes an invariant section. The invariant section requirement used to be contained in the uneditable file http://www.wikipedia.com/license/fdl.html but that has ceased to exist after the software change. It can still be viewed at http://web.archive.org/web/20011112090138/http://www.wikipedia.com/license/f.... The invariant sections, or "linkbacks" have been defended by Jimbo and Larry in several Wikipedia-l messages in October 2001: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/date.html
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:27:31PM +0200, Axel Boldt wrote:
The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles from them. Two weeks ago, somebody asked me whether the material from our TeX article (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/TeX), which was originally based on FOLDOC's but has since grown considerably, could be reintegrated into FOLDOC. The answer is: only if they put our Wikipedia table into the FOLDOC entry, which they are unlikely to do because it doesn't really fit with their article formatting.
I'm not sure about this but should according to the GFDL FOLDOC then also not have a notice on its site saying that it is published under the GFDL?
These are two examples of the fledgling open content movement that's growing right now. We are currently the clear leader of this movement, but we are not playing very nicely. If everybody required their own invariant sections, cooperation and exchange would become almost impossible. I believe that this movement is ultimately even more important than Wikipedia. We should do everything to foster it, if only out of self-interest.
I completely agree with this and it made me wondering about the following:
1. Doesn't the GFDL now already require that you include a URL to Wikipedia if you copy material from it? I was thinking of section 4.J:
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
2. What about the requirement that the 5 main original authors should be mentioned as is said in 5.B:
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has less than five).
That would be a bit impractical for Wikipedia, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding something?
-- Jan Hidders
Oh, no! My sysop powers are no match for his special characters!
There exists a graphic at http://www.wikipedia.com/upload/The%20newbie%20helper%5C%27%24.jpg ("The newbie helper'$.jpg") in plain text -- note the backslash and the apostrophe) that should be returned to the void whence it came. Clicking the delete link returns the message "File The newbie helper\'$.jpg deleted!" -- but the file is still there.
Would someone with powers greater than mine please nuke this abomination? And then perhaps look into handling strange characters more gracefully?
Thanks!
-- Sean Barrett | Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem. sean@epoptic.com | [The Devil made me do it.]
To shock the community: I agree with this. I am inclined to remove the invariant sections requirement.
Are there licensing difficulties with so doing?
Axel Boldt wrote:
Currently, we require an "invariant section", which means that anybody has to put a specifically formatted HTML table on every page that uses Wikipedia materials, asking people to contribute to Wikipedia. (See below (*) for the rather messy details.)
Here, I want to argue that we should abandon this invariant section.
The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles from them. Two weeks ago, somebody asked me whether the material from our TeX article (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/TeX), which was originally based on FOLDOC's but has since grown considerably, could be reintegrated into FOLDOC. The answer is: only if they put our Wikipedia table into the FOLDOC entry, which they are unlikely to do because it doesn't really fit with their article formatting.
There is a new, exciting and fast growing math encyclopedia at http://planetmath.org; everything is licensed under GFDL without invariant sections, and can therefore be used by us without problems (while acknowledging the source, as we do for FOLDOC articles). I haven't copied anything over yet, but I'm sure I will in the future. People have asked me whether they could take Wikipedia materials and post them on PlanetMath. For articles that I have written exclusively myself, and there aren't many, this is no problem. For others, the Wikipedia invariant table is required, which pretty much excludes them because of the site's particular layout.
These are two examples of the fledgling open content movement that's growing right now. We are currently the clear leader of this movement, but we are not playing very nicely. If everybody required their own invariant sections, cooperation and exchange would become almost impossible. I believe that this movement is ultimately even more important than Wikipedia. We should do everything to foster it, if only out of self-interest.
Even without an invariant section, the GFDL requires proper attribution of all materials. Rather than fretting over the possible evil schemes of big bad corporations, why not apply wiki principles: trust that people are basically good, and that the more freedoms you give them, the better the outcomes will be.
Axel
(*) The invariant section requirement is alluded to in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/GNU+Free+Documentation+License, but no link is given. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/wikipedia:copyright contains a "draft" which explicitly disputes an invariant section. The invariant section requirement used to be contained in the uneditable file http://www.wikipedia.com/license/fdl.html but that has ceased to exist after the software change. It can still be viewed at http://web.archive.org/web/20011112090138/http://www.wikipedia.com/license/f.... The invariant sections, or "linkbacks" have been defended by Jimbo and Larry in several Wikipedia-l messages in October 2001: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/date.html
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 6/21/02 11:20 AM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com wrote:
To shock the community: I agree with this. I am inclined to remove the invariant sections requirement.
Are there licensing difficulties with so doing?
No, since Wikipedia has never been formally compliant. If anyone were picky enough to complain that we're changing the requirements, they'd be picky enough to complain about our implementation of the licensing in the first place.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org