On 10/28/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the license will create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese, but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
Yes it is, but for the benefit of the audience the argument against mixing non-binding text with binding text goes something like this:
Consider two people: Person A: No ability to understand the legalese at all. Person B: Able to understand the legalese without difficulty.
Both A and B are going to reprint a highly enhanced subset of a free encyclopedia where all the articles have been edited for accuracy.
We'll consider two licenses: X: "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. Y: "Collective Work" means a work in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
Lets assume the free encyclopedia is licensed under Y. Person A reads Y, decides he can't understand it.. and either gives up or consults an attorney. Person B reads Y, understands it, and realizes this section is not excusing him from conformance.
Now lets assume license X. Person A reads X. sees the word encyclopedia and can't understand the rest. He is either mislead into thinking that since he's printing an encyclopedia he's a collective work and doesn't have to distribute the whole under the terms of the license... Or he worries that he didn't quite understand it, and consults his attorney. Person B reads X, understands the legalese, and gets it right.
So the argument is that the explanatory language doesn't help the clueless because they are insufficient to covey the complete meaning of the license, so you must still always understand the rest and that the existence of null effect language can create confusion.
Of course, the world isn't so black and white and people exist on a continuous spectrum between A and B. There are pros and cons to each style, and either kind of language could be selected by a rational and informed license author.
In any case, I hope I've cleared up any confusion brought by The Cunctator's inaccurate claim about the GFDL as there isn't a material difference between the CC-By-SA and the GFDL in the permissions granted with respect to aggregations.