[Wikipedia-l] Fair use and GFDL

[Jimmy Wales]

Axel Boldt wrote:
> I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a
> problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do
> what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are
> in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright
> to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the
> copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
> 
> Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.

There must be _something_ wrong with this analysis.  If correct, then
we can't even quote sources.  We can't quote a single line from any
book.  That's obviously absurd, so there must be something wrong with
it.

I think the way out of this puzzle is to look more closely at the
doctrine of fair use.  There are 4 factors that go into determining
whether a particular use is 'fair use':

>- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
>of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
>- the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
>- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
>copyrighted work as a whole, and
>
>- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
>copyrighted work.
See: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html

We can not be assured that licensees will do well #1.  But the other 3
will generally apply in the same way to all licensees.  For the sorts
of things we are thinking of including, it is difficult to see how any
licensee would find them problematic.

I will write to Richard Stallman to ask about this.  I'm sure the FSF
lawyers thought of all this, and if there was a significant problem,
they would have provided for it in the license somehow.

--Jimbo