Re: Question about re-use

As to 1, couln't you distribute the text of the GFDL along with the mp3 
(in a tar, or arguably just on the same ftp server).  Then the person 
can simply separate the text of the GFDL when they copy it onto their 
mp3 player.  That still assumes, of course, that you're making a literal 
copy, which is questionable at best.

IANAL, blah blah blah.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I just bought a handy little MP3 player.  If I go for a walk (likely)
>or jogging (unlikely) or to the gym (not as likely as it should be), I
>can now listen to music or audiobooks.  So I thought "Wouldn't it be
>neat to have some Wikipedia articles to listen to?"
>
>I could use text-to-speech software, but as far as I know, the output
>is not very humanlike yet, and this could be annoying.
>
>I could read the articles myself and record that, and make mp3s and
>listen to those, but what would be the point?  I would have already
>read those articles.
>
>So it occurred to me that what would be neat is if lots of people were
>interested in the same thing.  I might read 10 articles into my
>computer and then share them with a sensible title over Gnutella
>networks.  "Wikipedia - Pete Rose.mp3" for example.  And then lots and
>lots of other people might do the same thing.  
>
>We might even like to have an official project with a bit of invariant
>text at the front saying "This is the official version from the
>Wikipedia Readers Club of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."  But mabe we
>don't care about that.  Anyhow, that's not my question.
>
>Is this possible under the GNU FDL?  It seems that it ought to be
>trivially possible, it's the whole *point* of the GNU FDL, really,
>freely sharing content across multiple media.
>
>1.  Is it a verbatim copy?  If so, then under section 2 of the
>license, we have to distribute the license along with the copy.
>Reading the whole boring license into the mp3 sounds stupid and
>annoying and useless to me, but that's what a literal reading would
>suggest.
>
>2.  Section 3 of the license appears to say that if I distribute a
>verbatim copy that is opaque and numbers more than 100, then I just
>have to give a network location where it exists, and must take
>reasonably prudent steps to ensure that it'll continue to exist there
>for at least one year.  This sounds easy for people to do.  Just say
>"This is a verbatim reading of the December 14, 2003 version of this
>article.  It can currently be accessed at
>http://www.wikipedia.org/blahblahblah.  The current version of the
>article can be accessed at..."  
>
>A reasonably prudent person would expect that Wikipedia's website will
>still exist a year from now, so that should be fine.
>
>HOWEVER, this still doesn't solve the problem from item 1, i.e. the
>requirement that the license itself be included.
>
>----
>
>Interpretations?
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>Wikilegal-l mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l
>
>  
>