Re: GFDL / CC by-sa compatibility

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'd like to see this, because it seems quite suspect.
>>    
>>
>A quick check found this Wikipedia-l post:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-June/010512.html
>  
>
"If the use of these images is truly fair use, then it is ok regardless 
of what license you use for your work.  Whether this use of the images 
is truly fair use, that I don't know."  Actually, after doing a search 
on my own, I read this.  Seems like a non-answer to me.  If it's fair 
use, then obviously the license doesn't matter.  But it needs to be fair 
use *both ways*.  I don't see how an entire paragraph or two (or more) 
can be considered fair use.  And someone else posted:

him:
"Yes, both parts of the article (image, text) come from the wikipedia server. 
The text is GFDLed, the image is not."

RMS:
"Such combination would violate the GFDL."

>Things get messy if we would try to force everybody to dual license - we need 
>the consent of all users to make that happen. That is, as I have said, not 
>possible.
>
But you don't need the consent of all users.  You only need the consent 
of all users who have contributed to an article which contains images 
which are not GFDL compatible.

>The interim result of any such effort would be odd indeed; all the 
>individual edits made after the license change would be dual licensed but the 
>article as a whole could only be under the GFDL until all the GFDL text is 
>replaced by dual licensed edits.
>  
>
Umm, yeah, I don't see it as odd, but I guess I see where this could 
confuse people.

>>"If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it 
>>to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-
>>cover texts, or back-cover texts)."  I don't see anything about 
>>freeing downstream users from the more onerous requirements.  
>>    
>>
>
>That is just the copyright statement that is required by the GFDL to be used 
>verbatim for any GFDL text that does not have invariant sections, front-cover 
>texts, or back cover texts. Read below that to find out how we recommend 
>third parties to adhere to the the GFDL. It is much less restrictive than the 
>letter of the GFDL. 
>  
>
The letter of the GFDL, and the license statement, is the reality.  
Wikipedia's recommendations are meaningless, because Wikipedia is not 
the copyright holder.  Actually, Wikipedia, as publisher, can make some 
binding relaxations, like allowing the title to stay the same, but most 
of the GFDL cannot be changed by the publisher without permission of the 
copyright holders.

>>Specifically, where does it say that you grant people permission 
>>to add non-GFDL content to derivitive works?
>>    
>>
>
>Fair use is an overarching doctrine of the copyright law. We also have a 
>policy on fair use spelled out on that page. 
>http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements
>  
>
Fair use is federal law.  Anything Wikipedia says on what is or isn't 
fair use is meaningless.

>>Sure, they can use the text, but they can't use the images.  
>>But hey, you're saying they can, because RMS said so.  Maybe 
>>    
>>
>But this does introduce a poison pill into our database that makes it more 
>difficult for many downstream users to use our content.
>
And that's why I don't see how it could possibly be GFDL compliant.  
Introducing a poison pill into GFDLed text should not be allowed.

What if a commercial entity bought up an image database and distributed 
a Wikipedia with all professional images in it?  Would you consider that 
to be a violation of the GFDL?

>We should therefore make their due diligence job easier by having forms in MediaWiki's upload page that will categorize files based on license and use restrictions.
>
That's certainly a minimum.  I still don't think it's enough to be GFDL 
compliant, but that's for those whose copyrights are being violated to 
worry about.