Re: Re: Verbatim copying

 From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149-/[email protected]>

> 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.

I agree with this, a copy of the GFDL is a copy of the GFDL, it can become
local when it is loaded into the browser, is in-line linking local or
remote?
There are arguments both way, I don't think that hyperlinking to the
authorative
text is any different than putting it on a page somewhere, we call that
"incorporated by reference" in legal beagle mumbo jumbo jargon.

> |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.

As long as they mention that it is GFDL and "incorporate by refererence" a
copy of the license, I doubt anyone could really mount a successful argument
that they were not trying to be compliant.

> 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.

A simplified license would be a great idea, the problem is that the only way
for it to be retroactive for all the current content is to have the Free
Software
Foundation to issue it as a successor license to the current GFDL version
and have Wikipedia adopt that successor license.

> 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...
>
Not a bad idea, and maybe 5) A link back to the page history in the upstream
version.

I'm not sure how is this different from what most licensees  on the internet
do with Wikipedia
content?

Alex756