I only recently discovered the requirement to place a table at the bottom of every page that uses content taken from Wikipedia (see http://www.wikipedia.com/license/fdl.html).
I don't like that idea, and having read the GNU FDL, have come to the conclusion that the requirement is most likely in violation of the terms of the license. The FDL permits the inclusion of invariant sections, but it makes clear that these are front cover sections or appendices, i.e. separate sections at the beginning or end of a work, not something to be included on every page. It also implies that each of these sections is to have a unique title -- are we to give each link table a unique name? It also implies clearly that the invariant sections are in the original copy of the document -- which the table links aren't in the original copy (www.wikipedia.com).
Furthermore, even if these link tables were present in the original copy, and mentioned, and given section names, nowhere does Wikipedia contain a notice indicating them as invariant sections, along the lines contained in the FDL.
Finally, requiring them to be in HTML seems to be violative of the FDL as well. What if I wanted to do my website in some other markup language, such as XHTML or SGML or XML or WML or (insert some not yet invented language here) instead? Then I can't technically include the exact HTML, which seems to amount to a requirement that any redistribution on a website be in HTML. Additional restrictions over and above those in the FDL are prohibited by the FDL.
Now of course, any of these terms could be added if some one individual owned the content to Wikipedia, but they don't. The contributors license it everyone else under the terms of the FDL; attempting to redistribute it under any additional restriction contrary to the FDL is in violation of their copyright, unless you get their consent, which would mean the consent of every single contributor to Wikipedia.
I understand that all people want to do is require acknowledgement, all I am saying is that legal means must be chosen to carry this out. The legal means are those permitted by the FDL, which is by placing a statement (and a URL) as front-cover matter, back-cover matter, or in an invariant section. Websites copying Wikipedia are required to include these sections, but these are separate sections, not notices on every single page.
Simon James Kissane
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
In this letter, I will answer some specific technical questions about the license to the best of my ability. But in a separate letter I will answer the bigger picture question, and convince Simon that the attribution requirement is a good thing.
Simon Kissane wrote:
I don't like that idea, and having read the GNU FDL, have come to the conclusion that the requirement is most likely in violation of the terms of the license.
Most certainly not. I asked RMS specifically about this issue before we adopted the GNU FDL for Nupedia and Wikipedia.
The rule is that the invariant section can contain anything as long as it is not the subject matter of the article. In particular, the invariant section can contain HTML code for linking back to the article.
The FDL permits the inclusion of invariant sections, but it makes clear that these are front cover sections or appendices, i.e. separate sections at the beginning or end of a work, not something to be included on every page.
Each individual article in Wikipedia is released under the FDL. They are completely separable by potential users.
It also implies that each of these sections is to have a unique title -- are we to give each link table a unique name? It also implies clearly that the invariant sections are in the original copy of the document -- which the table links aren't in the original copy (www.wikipedia.com).
This is obviously a minor technical issue which can be fixed in 5 seconds.
Finally, requiring them to be in HTML seems to be violative of the FDL as well. What if I wanted to do my website in some other markup language, such as XHTML or SGML or XML or WML or (insert some not yet invented language here) instead? Then I can't technically include the exact HTML, which seems to amount to a requirement that any redistribution on a website be in HTML. Additional restrictions over and above those in the FDL are prohibited by the FDL.
But additional *permissions* are not prohibited. What we do is require the HTML if you are publishing in *any* medium, but give you an extra *permission* to render it INSTEAD as plain text, XML, SGML, or whatever is appropriate in a particular medium.
There is no violation of the license to require that the invariant section be rendered exactly, no matter what the contents.
Now of course, any of these terms could be added if some one individual owned the content to Wikipedia, but they don't. The contributors license it everyone else under the terms of the FDL; attempting to redistribute it under any additional restriction contrary to the FDL is in violation of their copyright, unless you get their consent, which would mean the consent of every single contributor to Wikipedia.
This is a deep misunderstanding. Any redistributor can add invariant sections. We add ours. You are free to distribute your own writings without the invariant sections if you like.
I understand that all people want to do is require acknowledgement, all I am saying is that legal means must be chosen to carry this out. The legal means are those permitted by the FDL, which is by placing a statement (and a URL) as front-cover matter, back-cover matter, or in an invariant section. Websites copying Wikipedia are required to include these sections, but these are separate sections, not notices on every single page.
They are separate sections, on every single page.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
[snip]
Each individual article in Wikipedia is released under the FDL. They are completely separable by potential users.
But section 6 of the license reads "You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice. The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy."
Therefore even if you release each Wikipedia article individually under the FDL, someone can combine them all, and delete all but one of the Wikipedia linking tables, since they would fall under "multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy." And then they can split that one work over multiple pages, treating the pages not as separate documents, but as mere subdivisions of a single document. So ultimately section 6 permits the evasion of your requirement, and allows the inclusion of only a single linkback, not even on the same page as the Wikipedia article, so long as they are all linked together to form a single document. Which is roughly what I would propose instead.
[snip]
But additional *permissions* are not prohibited. What we do is require the HTML if you are publishing
in *any* medium, but give you an extra *permission* to render it INSTEAD as plain text, XML, SGML, or whatever is appropriate in a particular medium.
Require the HTML if you are publishing in any medium? But give you permission to render it in another medium? So what then are we requiring -- the HTML code, or what the HTML code renders? And if only what the HTML code renders, how accurate a rendition is necessary?
There is no violation of the license to require that the invariant section be rendered exactly, no matter
what the contents.
Well, I think the license implies that "rendered exactly" refers primarily to identical text. Otherwise, if you wanted to include images or fonts or tables, I couldn't redistribute the document in plain text. And, considering the object and purpose of the FDL, it seems clear that such a restriction, prohibiting distribution in certain media, is contrary to the license. As I interpret it, the FDL requires redistribution of the identical text, but not the same presentation or machine encoding of the text.
[snip]
This is a deep misunderstanding. Any redistributor can add invariant sections. We add ours. You are free to distribute your own writings without the invariant sections if you like.
Yes, but only insofar as the invariant sections comply with the FDL definition of an invariant section. Which as I said I doubt your invariant sections do. But anyway, as I pointed out above, even if they are valid invariant sections, you still can't impose a requirement for them to occur on every single page, if multiple Wikipedia pages are reproduced.
[snip]
Simon
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Simon Kissane wrote:
Each individual article in Wikipedia is released under the FDL. They are completely separable by potential users.
But section 6 of the license reads "You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice. The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy."
Therefore even if you release each Wikipedia article individually under the FDL, someone can combine them all, and delete all but one of the Wikipedia linking tables, since they would fall under "multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy."
They aren't identical. Each one links back to the original article. (Or should have -- it does now. The whole point is to make the original available.)
Require the HTML if you are publishing in any medium? But give you permission to render it in another medium? So what then are we requiring -- the HTML code, or what the HTML code renders? And if only what the HTML code renders, how accurate a rendition is necessary?
I can't imagine that anyone will really quibble over this.
I suppose someone might put up a web page, and put the HTML there, but in such a fashion that it is invisible, despite our clean intention. Would we be able to prevent that? Maybe, maybe not. But I just don't see it really coming up. Public pressure alone would be sufficient to prevent it, I think.
The FDL says that invariant sections are invariant, i.e. that they must be presented exactly as the licensee grantor specifies. A reasonable court would reasonably rule that this means that you can't print it in invisible ink, for example. You can't print it on an HTML page in such a way that it can't be seen in a browser.
Well, I think the license implies that "rendered exactly" refers primarily to identical text. Otherwise, if you wanted to include images or fonts or tables, I couldn't redistribute the document in plain text. And, considering the object and purpose of the FDL, it seems clear that such a restriction, prohibiting distribution in certain media, is contrary to the license. As I interpret it, the FDL requires redistribution of the identical text, but not the same presentation or machine encoding of the text.
Right, but so what?
Yes, but only insofar as the invariant sections comply with the FDL definition of an invariant section. Which as I said I doubt your invariant sections do. But anyway, as I pointed out above, even if they are valid invariant sections, you still can't impose a requirement for them to occur on every single page, if multiple Wikipedia pages are reproduced.
O.k., there are two objections here.
First, that these invariant sections may not comply. But you have to be specific about why not? Under the license, an Invariant section is a kind of Seconary section, and the only restriction on a Secondary section is that it not be *about* the topic of the article, and may deal with "matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. "
Perhaps we should tweak the notice to more clearly fall within that?
Second, your objection about multiple pages and identical notices relies on the notice being identical on each page, but it isn't.
One thing I will grant you -- because none of this has really come up in any real context, we haven't bothered to use all the terminology of the FDL throughout the site consistently. That's what we're trying to do now.
Jimbo: Okay, I think you have convinced me they are permissible invariant sections, but I still don't see how under the FDL you can make people place them on each article page, as opposed to placing each of them on a separate page.
[snip]
They aren't identical. Each one links back to the original article. (Or should have -- it does now. The whole point is to make the original available.)
Okay, even if they aren't identical, I can still put them on a separate page from the article, so long as they form 'one document'. So if I put all of Wikipedia on my own website, I could add a page called 'Invariant Sections', put every linkback table on that page, and not put them on the individual article pages -- so long as the 'Invariant Sections' page and the article pages were linked into one document -- say by linking to them all from a 'Table of Contents' page. Then I would be complying with the FDL, but still evading your requirement to have the link back table on every page.
[snip]
Simon J. Kissane
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Simon Kissane wrote:
Okay, even if they aren't identical, I can still put them on a separate page from the article, so long as they form 'one document'. So if I put all of Wikipedia on my own website, I could add a page called 'Invariant Sections', put every linkback table on that page, and not put them on the individual article pages -- so long as the 'Invariant Sections' page and the article pages were linked into one document -- say by linking to them all from a 'Table of Contents' page. Then I would be complying with the FDL, but still evading your requirement to have the link back table on every page.
Maybe! I'm not sure that a person could reasonably make the claim that posting the article on one page, and the invariant section on a separate page could meet the requirements of the license.
If anyone attempted to do that, we'd have to try to convince them otherwise, I suppose. It would seem kind of silly to me, but basically I have no intention of being inflexible if it comes down to that.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org