Slashdot Mirror
GFDL 1.3 Is Out, Allows Migration To CC
David Gerard writes "Version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License is out (FAQ). This license is little-used, except on the #8 site in the world: Wikipedia. And this version includes special provisions to re-license wiki-based content from GFDL to the much simpler Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 3.0, as requested by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia plans to hold a public consultation process to decide whether and how to migrate to CC-BY-SA. The discussion is already running hot and heavy."
Am I the only one bewildered by the sheer number of different GNU/FOSS/Whatever-the-right-term-is licences in a field that strives for compatibility and standards?
AT&ROFLMAO
Why bother with this licence at all? Why not just use creative commons? Are there any notable, useful differences or is the licence trying to spread some GNU brand recognition through association?
It seems to say that you can now use FDL 1.3 licensed documents under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but only if it was on a wiki before 01 Nov 2008.
Since the license was released on 03 Nov 2008, you would not have been able to put a document on a wiki before then. So is this a reward for people who broke the licensing agreements, an amnesty or what?
The GFDL is based on the narrow politics of the FSF, while CC was created to allow people to choose what restrictions they want on their work.
I'm not sure the wholesale changing of license under author's noses is great, but if they wrote in the GPL suggested "version x or later" clause, well...they agreed to it already. Which is why I don't like giving other people blank contracts. I probably wouldn't have minded if I had donated something as GFDL, but the implications are scary. Said clause gives them permission to do just about anything. Few people I would trust this way.
I mean, try and explain to someone that your work is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3! That just souns silly and verbose.
;-)
Much simpler to just say "oh, you know, it's under a plain old Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 3.0".
(I'm kidding, I actually consider this important, it's just that catchy names isn't FOSS' people strongest point
I haven't looked at this new version of the GFDL yet, but previous versions were simply too complicated for my purposes. I'm not publishing a book, I don't need to worry about front and back covers etc.
I refuse to use CC licences at all either. Which licence? You can use this under the CC licence? Which one? The BY-SA-UK version 1.2 one. The what? Exactly.
Not to mention, in some of the licence terms (depending on which country I think), there are non-free restrictions. For example, not allowed to use the text to libel or some such.
Creative Commons encourages people (both "creators" and users) not to read licences, not to know that their rights are, and generally be ignorant.
What do I do instead? Something simple. Something like:
I get across the point that I want my work to be used, but only on the condition that the copyright line stays, and that downstream viewers of the work have the same right to use and modify the work.
And that is all that is needed for the vast majority of things that I have ever "published" (including photographs).
I wank in the shower.
Basically, Wikipedia was GFDL'd because the GFDL existed at the time. Since then, cc-by-sa has gotten a lot more momentum everywhere else, so it would be nice to move to it so content can be reused between Wikipedia and the many cc-by-sa books, websites, etc. that come out frequently.
The other reason is that the GFDL was designed for software manuals, so some of its technical requirements are highly impractical. You must reprint the entire GFDL text, which is several pages long, with any reuse. Fine if you're reprinting a book of 5,000 Wikipedia articles. But if you just want to print one on a flier, do you have to attach a pamphlet containing the GFDL text to every copy of the flier? And where the hell would you fit the list of all the article's authors, in the "History" section the GFDL requires you to maintain? Cc-by-sa has generally much more reasonable reuse requirements for all of this.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is basically a special-case clause to let Wikipedia get out of the GFDL and relicense itself to cc-by-sa, because the GFDL turns out to be highly impractical for Wikipedia and especially for any meaningful reuse of its content.
The date clause is designed to prevent someone from using this as a way to relicense all GFDL content that has ever been created, by laundering it through Wikipedia. Since you didn't know about this license until too late, you can't now go take a GFDL software manual, paste it into Wikipedia, and say this allows you to relicense it. Since people who wrote manuals years ago were not expecting to have their work relicensed in this way, the FSF felt compelled to avoid that outcome.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It really is a practicality problem for "meaningful reuse of its content". If you have to staple the entire text of the GFDL to a short article that you hope to print on a flier, you effectively can't reuse that article on a flier. What's more, no reuser can be confident that they're even doing it legally, even if they're willing to take heroic measures. The FSF will not say what the GFDL means as applied to Wikipedia. What is the History section? What is a derived version? What is the Title Page? When it says maintain the history section, does that mean you have to include on every redistributed copy the entire wiki edit history? If so, that surely limits the practicality of reuse.
In any case, I've been one of the people pushing for reuse (though I have no particular position in the WMF, and have not been actively involved), and I'm a strong proponent of the FSF. I like the GPL and LGPL lots, and recommend them as best-choice free-software licenses. But that doesn't mean everything they touch is golden.
As for your allegation that people supporting this change "hate the viral nature" of the GFDL, that wouldn't make any sense--- this relicensing is to another viral license. This isn't a relicensing to just any Creative Commons license you want to pick, but specifically to the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (cc-by-sa); the "share-alike" part is a viral copyleft clause.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The hard and heavy discussion contains not even a slipped nipple. Suggest looking elsewhere for erotica.
I record my sleeptalking
I understand RMS threatened to do a GNUpedia unless Nupedia adopted the GFDL. [citation needed, I don't have it to hand]
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Wikipedia is the crown jewel of GFDL. But - GFDL was really originally written to deal with technical documentation to accompany GPL software, not to deal with content on wikis etc. But it seemed like a good license when Wikipedia started so they used it. There is also a lot of Creative Commons content out there that Wikipedia wants to work with, and the GFDL provisions made working everything together difficult.
So what does Stallman do? He magnaminously allows the crown jewel of using GFDL to move towards the CC world, if Wikipedia wants. Can we imagine Microsoft, or SCO or proprietary licensed software companies doing this? No. And it is helping the digital commons community, although from now on Stallman and the FSF will not being getting kudos for the license for Wikipedia content from now on, because Stallman was so gracious about it.
There is a difference between holding to your principles, and being stubborn just for the sake of ego or whatever. Stallman has always held to his principles regarding freedom. But here is an example of him working with others, and being flexible, to help the greater cause of the digital commons. I have to read for years about how inflexible Stallman supposedly is, here is an example to the contrary. Because Stallman is flexible, he is only inflexible about his principles and about freedom.