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

[Daniel Mayer]

On Saturday 15 June 2002 12:01 pm, Axel 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.

Uh oh, if this is true then this is evil (TM). We should be not be limiting 
the exchange of wikipedia text in this way -- especially with somebody else 
using the same darn license. They let us use their initial text, we shouldn't 
be placing unnecessary restrictions on the use of our material (especially 
when we are, like Axel mentions, the obvious leader of the Open/Free Content 
movement). All we should do is ask them to link to the wikipedia version of 
the text -- not require this by insisting on the use of invariant sections or 
by any other means for that matter. I'm sure they would be more than happy to 
voluntarily link to the wikipedia version if we asked nicely (and we should 
also link to their version voluntarily, just to be nice).

> 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.

Definitely agree. Isn't this issue similar to the original "advertising" 
problem of the BSD license that prevented early BSD licensed stuff from being 
incorporated into GPL'd software? One could imagine the problems this may 
cause if everybody required an 'invariant section' -- after a lot of swapping 
of text back and forth the invariant sections of FDL'd works would soon be 
longer than the work itself! Not to mention the fact that Axel points out of 
the problems that are created for those that don't require, or even forbid 
the use of, invariant sections. 

Although, this all may be for moot -- [[wikipedia:copyrights]] states that: 
"By placing your work in Wikipedia, you agree to grant its users permission 
to use, copy, distribute and/or modify the work under the terms of the GNU 
Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the 
Free Software Foundation; with no invariant sections, no front-cover texts, 
and no back-cover texts."
Which has been my understanding of the issue all along (there is a note on 
that page that this statement has not be approved yet, though -- maybe it is 
time to do so?).

If we do go (or already are) "invariant free" this may have the side-effect 
of reducing the amount of external text's we can obtain (esp. from many 
governments and most US states). Many times all the author/owner of external 
text requires is recognition for their work -- which isn't possible to ensure 
without an invariant section. But then, Axel is right in stating that there 
are larger issues at stake than making our job of creating new articles 
easier. 

Power to the wiki!

maveric149