[Foundation-l] Re: questions about complying with the GFDL

[Michael Snow]

Delirium wrote:

> Now, the GFDL requires that if you distribute more than 100 copies of 
> a document, you must also distribute the source (i.e. wikitext) 
> version of the document, and the text of the GFDL itself.  I don't see 
> a good way to do this on a smallish pamphlet (say, 5 pages): the text 
> of the GFDL itself would nearly double the size of the pamphlet.  The 
> wikitext version is permitted to be distributed electronically (i.e. 
> "see http://blah/ for a source version of this document"), but even 
> that is somewhat onerous, as a small organization may not have the 
> resources or interest in maintaining a mirror of the documents it 
> distributes for the required year.  Notably, pointing to wikipedia.org 
> is not sufficient---the GFDL requires that the person doing the 
> distribution maintain an exact source mirror of the document exactly 
> as distributed, "free of added material", and including any changes, 
> so "derived from the Wikipedia article [here]" would not be enough. 

It seems to me that it might be possible to comply with this particular 
requirement by copying from, and using the link to, a previous version 
of the page. For example, you might want to include the article 
[[Greece]] on your most recent revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Greece&oldid=5864661 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Greece&oldid=5864661>

By including the full URL of a specific revision, rather than that of 
the current article, you assure that the linked page will be "free of 
added material".

In connection with the general discussion about flagging revisions for 
use in a 1.0 print publication, this means that providing a reliable 
computer-network location is not that difficult. If you rely on 
Wikipedia to keep its history available for at least the required year, 
then it may be possible to comply with the GFDL on a print run without 
maintaining your own mirror site.

--Michael Snow