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

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Apr 22 15:54:22 UTC 2008

Given that it has been indicated that a new version of the GFDL is imminent,
given that it is not unlikely to be there before the end of this month,
would it not make sense to leave this question until the new version is

A practical point, all the pronunciations that I put into Commons, may be
re-licensed to CC-by.


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the
> satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with
> licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
> 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?
> Kat Walsh has asked licensing at fsf.org, but they tend to act like a
> Magic 8 Ball that says "read the license text and consult your
> lawyer."
> I asked about audio versions of GFDL text on the FSFE discussion list.
> One useful suggestion (from M. J. Ray) was:
> > Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in
> > certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F).
> > There's probably other special cases too.
> Is there such a provision in US law? I presume there is one in other
> legal systems too.
> This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list