[Wikipedia-l] The case against "invariant sections"

Jan.Hidders hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Sat Jun 15 21:42:09 UTC 2002


On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:27:31PM +0200, Axel Boldt wrote:
> 
> The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL without
> invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles from them. Two
> weeks ago, somebody asked me whether the material from our TeX article
> (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/TeX), which was originally based on
> FOLDOC's but has since grown considerably, could be reintegrated into
> FOLDOC. The answer is: only if they put our Wikipedia table into the
> FOLDOC entry, which they are unlikely to do because it doesn't really fit
> with their article formatting.

I'm not sure about this but should according to the GFDL FOLDOC then also
not have a notice on its site saying that it is published under the GFDL?

> These are two examples of the fledgling open content movement that's
> growing right now. We are currently the clear leader of this movement,
> but we are not playing very nicely. If everybody required their own
> invariant sections, cooperation and exchange would become almost
> impossible. I believe that this movement is ultimately even more
> important than Wikipedia. We should do everything to foster it, if
> only out of self-interest.

I completely agree with this and it made me wondering about the following:

1. Doesn't the GFDL now already require that you include a URL to Wikipedia
   if you copy material from it? I was thinking of section 4.J:

    J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
       public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the
       network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was
       based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit
       a network location for a work that was published at least four years
       before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the
       version it refers to gives permission.

2. What about the requirement that the 5 main original authors should be
   mentioned as is said in 5.B:

    B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
       responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
       Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
       Document (all of its principal authors, if it has less than five).

   That would be a bit impractical for Wikipedia, wouldn't it? Or am I
   misunderstanding something?

-- Jan Hidders



More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list