Re: FDL used to stifle distribution of articles

[Posted, with a copy to Martin as apparently requested.]

Martin Harper wrote in part:

>There is a debate over whether we license Wikipedia under the GFDL as a single
>document, or as a collection of Documents. In broad terms, the former interpretation
>is easier for us, while the latter interpretation is easier for our redistributors. The
>Cunctator favours the former interpretation, while I favour the latter.

>Redistributors can similarly choose to treat their entire website as a single
>Document, license the whole thing under the GFDL, and have a similarly brief
>tagline on their front page (Title Page). However, redistributors typically do not wish
>to license their entire website under the GFDL, so this option is not as useful to them
>as one might imagine.

It seems to me that Cunc's version is equally useful to redistributors.
What difference does it make if they redistribute all of our content
or modify it to delete all 179999 180000ths of it?  Our work may be a site,
but their derived work might be a subdirectory, or even a single page.
The 5 authors requirement could even give them a good incentive
to group things together where appropriate, but they can still do
just one page if that's all that they want.


-- Toby