[Wikipedia-l] FDL used to stifle distribution of articles

[Jimmy Wales]

Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> That site actually reserves the right to distribute the material in any form, 
> including for example on paper, smartphones or on PDAs (since the site is 
> down I'm citing that from google cache).  That makes a weblink to Wikipedia 
> practically useless. In addion, Flexikon states "so dass Sie keine Inhalte 
> einstellen dürfen, wenn Sie später eigene Rechte geltend machen wollen" (You 
> may not upload content, if you want to claim rights on the text later). 
> That's not true, putting a text under GNU FDL does not mean, *losing* ones 
> rights on the text.  What makes me especially angry is DocCheck/Flexikon 
> putting a "(c) 2002 by DocCheck Medical Services GmbH" under each article 
> page, and refering to the GNU FDL just on one general "usage" page. It all 
> looks like a de facto re-closing of open content.

I would agree with you, given the totality of these facts.  But in the
past, we have had very good success with just writing a kind letter
asking people to do the right thing.

> I agree with everyone thinking the GNU FDL is completely unsuitable for 
> Wikipedia. We act against this license a hundred times a day moving content 
> from one article to another, translating from english to german and just 
> stating there "aus en:".

I'm not convinced that any of that amounts to even a technical
violation of the license, properly interpreted.

> It's a fact that the license is at it is. We should have choosen a better one 
> in the first place, but now we have the GNU FDL and it's likely that we have 
> to live with her. The only way for having any changes would be a nother 
> version of the license released by the GNU Foundation.

I believe this to be a possibility.  Richard Stallman has indicated to
me that he would look favorably on a "lesser FDL", similar to the
"LGPL" or "Lesser GPL", if it is free and serves people's needs
better.  It's really just a matter of us doing the hard work to design
that license and campaign for it to be adopted.

> But the license does not allow for hijacking of the material: If one is going 
> to use the material in a commercial context, we should insist on our rights 
> to keep the content free, to have any derived work free again and to have 
> mentioned our effort in developing that content.

Yes, I agree with you.

Have you heard back from the offending site?  What's their story?

--Jimbo