Talk:GNU Free Documentation License/Archive 1

message: Hey, there is a new collaboratively written blook that has GNU license. It explores public issues and current US foreign policy obstacles. Do you guys think it is good enough to add to the list? its www.ourblook.com. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.13.150 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New GNU Licensed Project - Need opinion

message: Maybe it would be a good idea to create a disambiguition page for GFDL which redirects to this page. GFDL also can stand for Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory for which an article already exists.
Gulliveig 08:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguition

message: Has debian-legal finally concluded that FDL with IS is non-free?
The last that I heard, it was still a matter of some debate; although things certainly seemed to be headed to that conclusion, I'm surprised that it's already been reached.
In particular, is the FSF's documentation for emacs being moved to /nonfree/?
-- Toby Bartels 21:17, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: They had a survey, which showed (AFAICT) that the majority concluded that GFDL was incompatible with the DSFG *even without Invariant Sections*. In particular, they seem to regard the "anti-DMCA" provisions (cannot use technical measures to prevent further copying and viewing of copies you make or distribute) to be non-free. Martin 23:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: debian-legal conclusion

message: *The ver 1.2 of GFDL seems to indicate that Page history section should really named "History." (See the "APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS" part)
*I am not sure if it is GFDL compliant when a page is modified and the names of the authors are not listed at the title page. Of course, the title "page" does not exist for Wikipedia. But GFDL specifically mention to such a case, and says that we should use some space between the title and the main text. So it seems that the strict compliance would be to display names of authors after the articles' title. Currently, we have authors' names in page history section. 
*I am not sure if it is GFDL compliant when a person A uploads an image to a wikipedia, and a person B uses that image in an article. Is the article "modified version" of the image in GFDL's sense? I am really not sure...
Tomos 22:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: some questions about compliance

message: How do translated works fall under this? --207.103.218.175, 21:37, 12 Feb 2004
:See Modifications, i.e. a translation is a modification of the work. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: When was the GFDL "born"? Guaka 22:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could do with some history.  As it currently stands it does not even mention the earlier version 1.1. I have tried to track down some history about the license, but there doesn't seem to be much on line. -- Popsracer 13:22, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the GFDL

message: I've removed Ean Schuessler's contributions, as he was only offering them on the condition that we include an undesirable invariant section.
Matthew Woodcraft 20:20, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ean Schuessler's invariant section

message: At the least I'd like to see a link in the article to something that covers this assuming there is such a place but....
The FDL seems like it was designed for software manuals.  In that case it makes sense.  There is most likely very little data in the manual that is useful outside of the software the manual is for.
But, for an encyclopedia ?????  What consistituts reproducing the document?  If my 8 year old son is doing a report on Nebraska and he gets info from the Wikipedia is his report now FDLed?  If not, why?  If he includes a quote from the Wikipedia or just adds the Wikipedia to his bibilography is his report now FDLed?
:For the quote, no because it falls under US fair use guidelines.  For the bibliography, no because copyright protects expression, not content. Superm401 22:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That permission is unnecessary as no copyright protects against others using information from your work.  It only protects the exact way the information is expressed.  Of course, it is preferable to cite your sources even when you copy no text from them.  However, this is an ethical, not a legal issue.  Superm401 22:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a huge difference between copying the text and copying the information. If you copy FDLed text into another text, that other text can only be published under the terms of the FDL. But using the information is no problem, just as with any other encyclopedia or text (unless it contains patented algorithms or stuff like that).  Also, if you would copy text from Wikipedia into an article for the NYT or a book, or anything else, I think that only implies that the article that contains the line should be FDLed. Not the entire work. Just like including the Wikipedia no a CD doesn't mean that the entire CD should be FDLed. G-u-a-k-@ 20:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the information 

message: note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts
er, what are invariant sections, front-cover texts and back cover texts? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuff the GFDL talks about. -- orthogonal 18:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They come from book/journal publishing. Sections of a journal that are the same in every issue (editorial board, instructions to authors, that sort of thing) and the text on inside and outside of the front and back cover. Filiocht 07:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's incorrect. They're defined in the license.--Bcrowell 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invariant Sections, etc 

message: From the article: However in some specific cases, commercial re-uses may be fair use and in that case such materials do not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses.
It is not possible for all potential subsequent uses to be fair use. I am not sure if this is what the above sentence says but English is not my mother tongue. I believe fair use claim for distribution is valid (if it is valid at all) regardless of subsequent uses. Could someone clarify this section, I would do it myself but a native speaker would do it better. at0 22:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and GFDL 

message: I know that license debates can be heated and I stayed clear of them for now. Nevertheless, the main page had some pecularities under the heading 'Overly broad DRM clause'.
To say or suggest that the FSF has `a hidden agenda to discourage the use of proprietary software' is absurd. This smells like the average conspiracy theory. The FSF is not known for hidden agendas. Instead, they state it very clearly: the FSF discourages the use of proprietary software. So, yes, the FSF has an agenda but certainly not hidden.
Aside from this error, I did not understand the criticism of the quote that is given under this heading. I've dug a bit in the history of this page and I see that the arguments given in the main article are rephrased from the external links. However, the external links were perfectly clear to me, whereas the orginal article left me with confusion.
It seems that three separate points were being made.
*The first criticism seems directed at the restrictions on local copies of GDFL licensed documents. People are worried that you cannot save a local copy in a proprietary format even if the original stays available in an open format. 
*A problem with a broad interpretation of `technical measures' Reading the reference "why you shouldn't use the GNU FDL", I also see mention of technical measures, where this mention is used as a clarification of the former argument. Therefore, it seems bogus as an additional criticism.
*The last concern is about using proprietary software or file formats with build-in DRM features to distribute the content. Indeed, this is a restriction of the GFDL. 
I've tried to clarify the text on the first and third point, while dropping the second. Furthermore, I've given the external links a more prominent place, since they are worth a read.
Jan van Male 18:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly broad DRM clause

message: What's the difference between GFDL and PD images? There seems to be a strong similarity between the 2. --SuperDude 00:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the Reference Desk. Tyrenius 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PD or public Domain documents can be used for derivitive works, they do not need a liscense. GFDL are specfically NOT PD, or public Domain documents, as their liscense must be accompanied with the work, and you cannot deny others the right to copy, distrubute and/or modify them. PD documents can become non PD documents through derivitive works. GFDL documents cannot. Read the Richard Stallman article for context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.2.115 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Public domain]] 

message: When I'm using a GNU FDL image in a commercially published article I wrote on my own, do I have to GNU-FDL my article, as a GNU FDL image has been used? --Abdull 09:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using GNU FDL images 

message: Is there a difference between liscensing something under the GFDL, and releasing it into the public domain? If so, what? Which one is less restrictive to future users of the work? Where should I use one or the other if I want to release something? Can anyone help? Trevdna 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL & public domain 

message: Can someone wikilink the appropriate WP policy on GFDL sources in WP, and add this to the article?
We have a copyvio dispute at discrete Hankel transform, because the article contains source taken from the GSL manual, which is GFDL'ed. However, the GSL GFDL has "invariant front and back cover texts" which were not preserved, leading to the copyvio problem. linas 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using GFDL soures in WP? 

message: This article has been nominated for an "AID", which could end it in becoming a featured article, but the person who nominated it didn't announce the nomination very much, so 5 vote-getting days have been lost.  AID nominees need to get a certain number of votes each week, otherwise they get put in the rejected pile.
To vote for this article to receive an AID, go to Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive#GNU_Free_Documentation_License, and add your name. Gronky 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination: Article Improvement Drive (AID) 

message: Could someone provide a summary of the pertinent subject matter of the Article reformulated in the English language, said summary being intended for the benefit of such readers as who happen not to be intellectual property lawyers? LambiamTalk 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensibility 

message: The largest project using the license is Wikipedia, a general-purpose encyclopedia, but the license is not particularly popular among more serious projects.
Why is Wikipedia not a serious project?
I don't have an alternative wording, but I don't think this one fits. -- 132.68.249.100 21:17, 7 Sep 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the above statement a POV? I feel that explicit reasons on why this license is not particularly popular among more serious projects and citations are needed here to verify the statement. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious? 

message: Hi,
I want to ask a non-US semi-governmental website to release an image under GFDL. I'm not sure how good their English may be; I need brevity and clarity when I ask....
SO:What is the minimum yet still legal verbiage they would need to put on the page to make it kosher?? [Or is verbiage on the page itself even enough?] 
I want to state these things very clearly in the request letter... I deeply appreciate your help. Give me the correct answer, and I will name my firstborn child after you...--Ling.Nut 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean I have to name my kid 69.54.29.23? He'll get beat up every day in the playground! :-) Thanks.. --Ling.Nut 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help: minimum verbiage required for gfdl on image (name firstborn child!) 

message: This:
* Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL
says the following: 
:However, I have since been made aware of another issue. The GFDL says the following:
:"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
:This was intended to attack DRM systems, but it is far too broad. It applies to private copies made and not distributed. "Technical measures" is not defined. The natural interpretation includes activities like encrypting a copy, storing it on an encrypted filesystem, or even storing it on a file-sharing system with non-world-readable permissions. This is evidently not free.
That is such a wild misinterpretation of the FDL that it's absurd to keep this link in the article. We should not mislead our readers. "Private copies made and not distributed" is something the FDL doesn't care about. Since this is so glaringly inaccurate, I'm taking it out. Some other, factually sound criticism of the FDL would be welcome in its place. — coelacan talk — 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should be getting rid of  too, the "The "DRM" restriction"  is the first thing it talks about. --Benn Newman 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That doesn't say anything like "It applies to private copies made and not distributed.... The natural interpretation includes activities like encrypting a copy, storing it on an encrypted filesystem, or even storing it on a file-sharing system with non-world-readable permissions" or anything of the sort. That is what I have a problem with. The debian link seems to be talking about the DRM stuff with factual accuracy. — coelacan talk — 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you say it doesn't. The first numbered point from that section says, "it is not limited to the act of distribution (i.e., it applies to private copies as well)," and point three says in part, "as written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission of a copy of the document on your machine, storing it on an encrypted file system, distributing a copy over an encrypted link" --Benn Newman 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I'm sorry, I guess I completely failed in my comprehension. I'll go revert my deletion now. Thanks for clearing my head =) — coelacan talk — 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  factually inaccurate external link 

message: I have read the draft for the new GFDL 2.0. It mentions a GNU Wiki license. Does anyone know anything about this? Could it possibly be a way to make compatible with the CC-BY-SA license????? Does anyone know anything about any current effort to make these two similar licenses more compatible?--Bjwebb (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL 2.0