Source: http://www.defaultlogic.com/learn?s=GNU_Free_Documentation_License
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 22:49:39
Document Index: 349865943

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', 'art 1', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 16', 'art 6', 'art 8', 'art 3']

GNU Free Documentation License Learning | GNU Free Documentation License Facts and Resources | DefaultLogic For Business
On December 1, 2007, defaultlogic.com resource founder Jimmy Wales announced that a long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and others had produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to the similar Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC BY-SA) license.[4][5] These changes were implemented on version 1.3 of the license, which includes a new provision allowing certain materials released under the license to be used under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license also.[3]
To prevent the clause from being used as a general compatibility measure, the license itself only allowed the change to occur before August 1, 2009. At the release of version 1.3, the FSF stated that all content added before November 1, 2008 to defaultlogic.com resource as an example satisfied the conditions. The Wikimedia Foundation itself after a public referendum, invoked this process to dual-license content released under the GFDL under the CC BY-SA license in June 2009, and adopted a foundation-wide attribution policy for the use of content from Wikimedia Foundation projects.[8][9][10]
There have currently been no cases involving the GFDL in a court of law, although its sister license for software, the GNU General Public License, has been successfully enforced in such a setting.[11] Although the content of Wikipedia has been plagiarized and used in violation of the GFDL by other sites, such as Baidu Baike, no contributors have ever tried to bring an organization to court due to violation of the GFDL. In the case of Baidu, defaultlogic.com resource representatives asked the site and its contributors to respect the terms of the licenses and to make proper attributions.[12]
Notably, the Debian project,[14]Thomas Bushnell,[15] Nathanael Nerode,[16] and Bruce Perens[17] have raised objections. Bruce Perens saw the GFDL even outside the "Free Software ethos":[17]
The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself. Worse, the same is required for the standalone use of just one (for example, Wikipedia) image.[24]Wikivoyage, a web site dedicated to free content travel guides, chose not to use the GFDL because it considers it unsuitable for short printed texts.[25]
^ "defaultlogic.com Resource: About", Wikipedia, 2018-07-26, retrieved
^ Richard Stallman (12 September 1999). "New Documentation License--Comments Requested". Newsgroup: gnu.misc.discuss. Usenet: gnusenet199909120759.DAA04152@psilocin.gnu.org. Retrieved 2017.
^ a b c d "FDL 1.3 FAQ". Gnu.org. Retrieved .
^ Lessig, Lawrence (2007-12-01). "Some important news from defaultlogic.com resource to understand clearly (Lessig Blog)". Lessig.org. Retrieved .
^ "Wikimediafoundation.org". Wikimediafoundation.org. Retrieved .
^ "Wikimedia community approves license migration". Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved .
^ "Baidu May Be Worst defaultlogic.com resource Copyright Violator". PC World. 6 August 2007. Retrieved 2007.
^ Nerode, Nathanael (2007-12-10). "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL". Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2007-12-10. Retrieved .
^ Srivastava, Manoj (2006). "Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)". Retrieved . It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it is fundamentally incompatible with any free software license whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text. The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There are significant problems with the license, as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed under the GNU FDL into our distribution.
^ "Thomas Bushnell dismissed from Hurd project for criticizing GFDL". archive.is. 2003-11-19. Archived from the original on 2012-07-13. Retrieved .
^ Nerode, Nathanael (2003-09-24). "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL". Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2003-10-09. Retrieved .
^ a b Bruce Perens (2 Sep 2003). "stepping in between Debian and FSF". lists.debian.org/debian-legal. Retrieved . FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true to the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but the license text and attribution. FSF is not Creative Commons:the documentation that FSF handles is an essential component of FSF's Free Software, and should be treated as such. In that light, the GFDL isn't consistent with the ethos that FSF has promoted for 19 years.
^ a b c d Debian Project: Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian. Voted February-March 2006. (Accessed June 20, 2009)
^ FLOSS Manuals Foundation (6 June 2007). "License Change". FLOSS Manuals Blog. FLOSS Manuals Foundation. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 2009.
^ "Why the Wikimedia projects should not use GFDL as a stand alone license for images". Notablog.notafish.com. Retrieved .
GNU Free Documentation License Meaning
Sniper Elite V2 #2 lexa
Robocraft 'They are not even' [Amar McLegend]
Charlie Chaplin - By The Sea - Part 11
Charlie Chaplin - A Night In The Show 1
Charlie Chaplin - A Night Out - Part 1
Charlie Chaplin - By The Sea - Part 4
Neue freunde neues gluck film darsteller
Charlie Chaplin - Dough And Dynamite - Part 3
Charlie Chaplin - By The Sea - Part 16
Charlie Chaplin - Dough And Dynamite - Part 6
Charlie Chaplin - By The Sea - Part 8
Charlie Chaplin - By The Sea - Part 3