Well, I think the plain language of the FDL is that Ulrich is correct. It doesn't say you can point to a list of the authors elsewhere: it says that *you* have to list the authors, and on the title page, no less

(not in a list at the end of the document, for example, and *certainly* not with only a link at the end of a document to a list elsewhere).

Now whether Wikipedia would like to use the FDL is another matter. But we currently do, and changing our license seems pretty impossible at this point.

From: Ulrich Fuchs <mail(a)ulrich-fuchs.de> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:21:20 +0100 To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] FDL used to stifle distribution of articles Am Samstag, 29. November 2003 21:10 schrieb Erik Moeller: [snip] Just to put that "threat" in context: There currently is a website flexicon.doccheck.com (currently down, I don't know why) in Germany using Wikipedia material (either by copying it in the first place by the site maintainers or by uploading by Wikipedians), which does not comply to the licence (e.g. it does not list authors, it does not even mention Wikipedia). That site actually reserves the right to distribute the material in any form, including for example on paper, smartphones or on PDAs (since the site is down I'm citing that from google cache). That makes a weblink to Wikipedia practically useless. In addion, Flexikon states "so dass Sie keine Inhalte einstellen dürfen, wenn Sie später eigene Rechte geltend machen wollen" (You may not upload content, if you want to claim rights on the text later). That's not true, putting a text under GNU FDL does not mean, *losing* ones rights on the text. What makes me especially angry is DocCheck/Flexikon putting a "(c) 2002 by DocCheck Medical Services GmbH" under each article page, and refering to the GNU FDL just on one general "usage" page. It all looks like a de facto re-closing of open content. I agree with everyone thinking the GNU FDL is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. We act against this license a hundred times a day moving content from one article to another, translating from english to german and just stating there "aus en:". But that is *within* Wikipedia. It's a completely different thing if people are starting to make money out of that project. It's a fact that the license is at it is. We should have choosen a better one in the first place, but now we have the GNU FDL and it's likely that we have to live with her. The only way for having any changes would be a nother version of the license released by the GNU Foundation. (By the way, Erik, you cannot just add a statement on the edit pages (releasing from the five-author quote thing), since the license does not allow you to modify the text then. If you modify, you must put the modification again under the GNU FDL and under nothing else. The five-author-thing also applies to mere copying without modification, since the history "section" is part of the document.) For making one thing perfectly clear: I have nothing against using Wikipedia material in a commercial context. The license perfectly allows for that, that is what is *intended* and I actually start beleiving that a commercial read-only Wikipedia with edited content is probably a good thing (like Linux also needed Distributors for it's success). But the license does not allow for hijacking of the material: If one is going to use the material in a commercial context, we should insist on our rights to keep the content free, to have any derived work free again and to have mentioned our effort in developing that content. The German "Urheberrecht" (similar to copyright in US) is applying here (I think so, since there are just german people involved; *where* something is published is irrelevantin such a context, the question is *who* is publishing). However, the "Urheberrecht" is a personal right, there is no such thing as a "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia foundation" or "Wikipedians" who can possibly own the "Urheberrecht" on the texts. So, I have to say "I will do" when I'm meaning "we should do". *We* cannot do anything, it's always just the copyright owner who can do something. I have escalated this issue because Wikipedians have started to upload content to a commercially oriented site who is not complying to the GNU FDL at all. I do not want to threat any Wikipedian with legal action, but I also do not want to spoil any legal action against a non-complier to the license because some Wikipedians helped him in not-complying and I did not tell them to stop doing so. From a legal point of view I have to state explictly that I do not tolerate any uploading (of contented provided by me) to a commercial site that does not comply to the license, since otherwise I would not have done anything to keep the damage low (which is more or less required by german law -pretty good law, does prevent from things like SCO distributing Linux over years and then filing a lawsuit). Again, I'm not against open content. And I *know* that implies commercial usage. But I will fight any attempt to "re-close" the content, and that means, please, that Wikipedians do not actively *support* a non-complier(!) to the license with posting Wikipedia content there. Agreed This is absolutely not what I am doing. And I'm pretty sad about Erik being this insulting. Uli _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

From http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL

From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:29:54 -0800 To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent Fred Bauder wrote: I'm not sure how Wikipedia could be the plaintiff, as it doesn't hold copyright to the material. The material I've submitted to Wikipedia, for example, is copyrighted by me. I have licensed it under the GFDL, so Wikipedia, as well as anyone else willing to abide by the terms of the GFDL, is free to use my text. But they have no more rights to it than any other random person or entity does. -Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

"...the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the

Free Documentation License (GFDL)" This statement gives us standing as licensor, the defendent is a licensee under the GFDL. Fred > From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com> > Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org > Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:29:54 -0800 > To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The Defendent > > Fred Bauder wrote: > >> I think Flexicon is the logical defendent with Wikipedia as a the

>> should we chose to not accept repeated violations of our copyright, if >> contact with them requesting compliance proves unproductive. Ulrich

>> right to point this out but throwing in the "five author" question is

>> productive as we do want people, including commercial sites, to reuse

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Delirium wrote: So if Wikipedia can't be plaintiff, and you as an individual author are not willing to be plaintiff, then GFDL is no more than a paper tiger since violators may copy things with impunity.

Ulrich- [snip]

That site actually reserves the right to distribute the material in any form, including for example on paper, smartphones or on PDAs (since the site is down I'm citing that from google cache). That makes a weblink to Wikipedia practically useless. In addion, Flexikon states "so dass Sie keine Inhalte einstellen dürfen, wenn Sie später eigene Rechte geltend machen wollen" (You may not upload content, if you want to claim rights on the text later). That's not true, putting a text under GNU FDL does not mean, *losing* ones rights on the text. What makes me especially angry is DocCheck/Flexikon putting a "(c) 2002 by DocCheck Medical Services GmbH" under each article page, and refering to the GNU FDL just on one general "usage" page. It all looks like a de facto re-closing of open content.

I agree with everyone thinking the GNU FDL is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. We act against this license a hundred times a day moving content from one article to another, translating from english to german and just stating there "aus en:".

It's a fact that the license is at it is. We should have choosen a better one in the first place, but now we have the GNU FDL and it's likely that we have to live with her. The only way for having any changes would be a nother version of the license released by the GNU Foundation.

But the license does not allow for hijacking of the material: If one is going to use the material in a commercial context, we should insist on our rights to keep the content free, to have any derived work free again and to have mentioned our effort in developing that content.