Re: An FDL test case: McFly

Why all the outrage? The primary purpose of the GFDL is to free the 
content so that people can copy and modify it, specifically by 
preventing downstream content-modifiers from enforcing restrictions 
based on copyright law. It's not like Anthony is trying to prevent 
people from copying the stuff on McFly. On McFly, he has said he 
considers himself in compliance with our GFDL-related requirements. Even 
if he arguably doesn't follow every detail in the GFDL, in court he 
could certainly try to claim McFly satisfies a doctrine of substantial 
compliance. And anyway, where's the harm? Maybe if he were trying to 
pass himself off as the real thing, it would be worth pursuing more 
aggressive legal measures (I still think Wikipedia trademark 
registration is a more pressing issue to deal with than copyright).

Bottom line: McFly is a fork, and a pretty poor one. I know the thought 
of a fork gets some people's competitive juices going, but I don't think 
McFly is capable of seriously affecting Wikipedia's mind share. So far, 
it hasn't even really done much to articulate a justification for 
forking, it just went ahead and did it. Wikinfo/Internet-Encyclopedia at 
least has a raison d'etre. And neither of them comes close to Wikipedia 
in quality. So far, our history suggests that individual languages 
breaking away is a more serious concern for the project.

The GFDL is not so much a weapon for us to use against people who copy 
us--it's a defense for us to use if their stuff is good enough that we 
want to copy it back.

--Michael Snow