Re: Verbatim copying

Martin wrote:
>THREE: You must link to a *local* copy of the GFDL. The copy 
>on gnu.org is not an acceptable substitute.

Yeah it is - unless a harcopy is made. Then, annoyingly, the full GFDL has to 
be printed out and attached to the document. 

|H. Include an unaltered copy of this License. 

On the Internet a link to GNU.org's copy of the GFDL is no different than a 
link to our local copy. But it is still a good idea (esp since we let people 
download our whole datebase). IIRC the GNU people simply strongly recommend a 
local copy for Internet publication. 

So it seems it is a good idea but not an absolute requirement. I therefore 
don't think it should be something we should be concerned about enforcing in 
our downstream content users. 

The GNU FDL is a complicated mess. I don't think it is practical to ask people 
to follow it by the letter. We have very liberal interpretations of many of 
its requirements in order to function as a wiki and make it easy for people 
to use our text. I think that is a good thing. But,

a GNU FDL Lite would be very nice. It would require (IMO):
1) A mention of the source publisher (such as saying "text from Wikipedia" or 
whatnot)
2) A functional link back to the original document, or the full url in a 
printed copy. NOTE this should always be to where most of the document was 
created. 
3) A mention of that the text is under the GNU FDL-lite (link back on 
Internet, full url to the GNU's version for printed copies)
4) Any modifications and additions must be licensed under the GNU FDL. 

Just dreaming...

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)