[Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of GFDL content?

[Anthony]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:01 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text?
>
Depends on how you intend to distribute the spoken text.  The GFDL
does not state that the text of the license must be in the same format
as the rest of the document.  Including the license in an online
distribution is easy.  Including the license in a physical
distribution (of CDs or whatever) is easy.  The only difficulty I can
see for this would be for an audio broadcast - but then again, the
GFDL doesn't even mention anything about the public performance right
(only the public display right), so by a strict reading of the license
you aren't permitted to make an audio broadcast of a GFDL work anyway.
 And what radio station wants to broadcast GFDL documents anyway?

>  Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is
>  onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are
>  (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the
>  license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use
>  elsewhere.
>
>  Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
>
If anything, requiring the license to be spoken when the rest of the
document is spoken would benefit the blind, as it would more easily
inform them of their rights.  That's the whole point of requiring the
license to be included, right?  To inform people of their rights?