--- Axel Boldt axel@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
A couple more things:
- I am not in favor of switching to another license
for three reasons: ** designing a license is not easy, and it would suck a lot of energy out of Wikipedia proper.
So long as we don't start overreach, all we need to is make some simple changes to the GNU FDL, mainly deleting some of the requirements in section 4, such as the five author requirement. Of course, we'd need to get FSF permission to create a modified version of the GNU FDL, but I suspect they'd probably give it to us, so long as we didn't call it the FDL, and we acknowledged it as originating with them.
Furthermore, it is not clear that in the end we would be able to agree on one license.
Well, if we take the FDL as a base, and make only those changes are necessary to make it fit with Wikipedia.
I am planning to create my own modification of the FDL as a demonstration, and post it to see peoples reactions. I probably shouldn't post a modified version, even though it would only be to gather comments, since copyright on the FDL doesn't allow it, until I get permission from the FSF. (I have emailed RMS to ask him.)
** GFDL has goodwill in the community; our new license would be scrutinized and certainly criticized by vocal GNU hawks.
Again, basing it on the FDL with only a minimum of necessary modifications would solve this problem.
** I think it is not too difficult for Wikipedia to comply with GFDL, see below.
- the requirement that (at least) the five most
important authors be listed can be easily fulfilled once we keep complete logs (which is desirable for other reasons as well). We simply list *all* contributing authors then, and that is in compliance
with GFDL.
The problem here is, what if two hundred people have each made one edit to an article. Under the FDL, if I want to post that article anywhere else, or print it, I'd have to post the log as well.
I like the idea of not acknowledging the authors of articles. I think it emphasises the collective and communal nature of Wikipedia. In fact, I personally would rather not be acknowledged. But the FDL as it stands seems to force such acknowledgement.
[snip]
** We are currently using FOLDOC materials which were licensed to us under GFDL.
This would cause problems for my proposal to modify the FDL license, since we'd probably need their permission to distribute their material under a different license. But if its significantly similar to the FDL, I think we'd have a good chance.
And I doubt we are following the terms of the FDL at present anyway in so far as including FOLDOC materials goes.
[snip] Simon J Kissane
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com