Axel-
I'm not sure we should assume this before having tried. One could argue that this should actually be pretty cheap:
- GFDL materials are useless for most commercial enterprises
Which includes the people who sell them ;-). The problem is that by licensing under the GFDL, the company loses the ability to license to people like us in the future, i.e. those who want to produce freely copiable materials. So they will want to get as much money from the first GFDL licensee as they can, because they won't get another one. Furthermore, copyright holders are notiously suspicious about anything new -- they usually have ready made packages and will not alter their licensing policies just because we tell them to, simply because understanding the implications of the FDL requires legal consultation which costs money.
I obviously agree that it's worth trying. But I am not very optimistic.
I don't see the slippery slope, sorry.
I don't either. It's either freely distributable/modifiable or it isn't.
In its entirety, yes. But just because we allow fair use, Wikipedia will not automatically and gradually turn into a proprietary encyclopedia (slippery slope argument).
If I understood correctly, you argue that quotes are embedded in the text while images are kept in separate files, thus GFDL is not inherited by the photo but is inherited by the quotes. This is incorrect. Derivative work are required to be under GFDL;
So is the text
Bla
in combination with the text
[[Image:Bla.jpg]]
The technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a classical case of a derivative work.
The wiki-author doesn't add a picture, he adds a reference to a picture. The web browser will automatically retrieve that image if so instructed (visit the page with lynx and there is no image). The result is an aggregated, not a combined work under the FDL. The author cannot even change the image in any way by editing the article. Now, if article and image were always compiled together (as they would be on paper), that would be a different matter. But they aren't.
Moving quotes out of the main text and then "including" them somehow is a technical gimmick that doesn't change anything: adding a quote also creates a derivative work.
You would no longer add a quote, but a reference to one, and the same logic as above would apply.
So yes, fair use quotes are technically violations of GFDL, but completely harmless.
Many copyright holders see things differently. Author Dan van der Vat, for example, was asked to pay 25 British pounds for quoting two sentences from Churchill's History of the Second World War in his book "The Atlantic Campaign". Sure: The legality is questionable. But don't kid yourself into believing that nobody would ever consider quotes infringing. Treating fair use of quotes and images entirely differently is hypocritical and wrong.
Regards,
Erik