Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2

message: The GNU license headings are written in all-caps, and it uses (C) and (c) to denote copyright, rather than the preferable © symbol, which is legally less ambiguous. This is evidently so it can be transmitted intact in 7-bit text format, but there's no reason to do this in the rich HTML of Wikipedia (other than for users who might cut and paste it into such a format). I would suggest we make these substitutions, as they would not, in any way, alter the legal meaning of the document, but would make it easier to read. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection, although this sounds like fixing something which ain't broke.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text  has caps and (c), and I suspect "changing it is not allowed" will be the determining factor here, even for format changes. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably. It's just not very Wikipedia-looking, and things like all-caps headers would have been fixed very quickly anywhere else. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  It's not Wikipedia-looking because we didn't write it.  We just use it.  And to use it, we can't change it.  So we don't change it.  Maybe we can make it look nice once we migrate to the Creative Commons license.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure he folks at FSF wouldn't mind us tweaking capitalization (and if they did, it's obviously not an actionable infraction of the permissions anyway). Though I agree that it's not a big problem as is. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Caps, ©

message: I'm not a wikipedia editor or anything, but out of curiosity i clicked on the spoken version button. The date and version of the document are right, however the adress of the FSF (i suppose) is different in the spoken version. I'm not sure it matters much ( i doubt postal addresses can be copyrighted :D ), but it could be misleading, so i am just letting you know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the edit to change the address occurred just over five months after the spoken version was recorded. It's not a big deal because a new version of the GFDL will be released relatively soon. Graham87 04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken version of the text is NOT a verbatim copy 

message: Guys, I've written a nonfiction book and I would like to make a set of appendices out of Wikipedia articles.  There is some background information that Wikipedia explains very well:  but if I have to sacrifice copyright of the book to do that, that would be a dealbreaker.
So:  can I publish Wikipedia articles as an appendix with the GNU free documentation license, making the appendix also available on the web, while having in the same book my own work which remains under my copyright?
I'd much appreciate an explanation.  Thanks - CC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, any printed material (if more than 100 copies) requires the GFDL licence to be printed in full as well. However, if someone knows differently, please correct me as I'm not an expert. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Tivedshambo has it correctly, I believe.  As long as you include the full text of the GFDL with the articles, it should be ok.  I think the GFDL would also require that you include copies of the edit histories as well (see section 4-I for this requirement).--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, don't take our words for it: Wikipedia:Copyrights has an in-depth discussion of how to do what you would like to do.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a link to Wikipedia:Copyrights at the top of this page (and taken the opportunity to do some archiving at the same time) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, guys.  I don't see how I could include the history of an article in printed text (without it becoming pretty ugly); and they'll be extracts anyway.  I'll check out the copyright article you mention.  19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Practical Question

message: Please add interwiki :it:Wikipedia:Testo della GNU Free Documentation License. Thanks--Trixt (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks like it's done.  --CapitalR (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwikis 

message: Is the GFDL compatible with the Creative Commons Public Domain license? I know I can put Public Domain contents into Wikipedia articles, but can I do the other way around? The GDFL says "[...] derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense." So, are they free in the same sense? - Tekoteko (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the CC Public Domain certification isn't really a license, per se. All it says is that you believe to the best of your knowledge that the work you are attaching it to is in the public domain, and thus free for anyone to use for anything.  Anything in the public domain can be used in Wikipedia.  However, work licensed under the GFDL cannot be released into the public domain without permission from all of the authors, so Wikipedia articles cannot be certified as public domain unless you get permission from all of the authors listed in the history.  So the GFDL freedom is much narrower than public domain.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility Question 

message: Hi, I want to develop a software using some part of Wikipedia as output for the user: when the user specify some options a wikipedia page is displayed. I want to know if there is a limitation of the license of my software or the license related to the documentation itself. Thanks. Pyabo
:I think it would depend on whether the software was simply taking the user to a Wikipedia page, or whether the Wikipedia page was packaged with the software.  If your software is simply redirecting a user to the en.wikipedia.org website, then I doubt you need to worry about our licenses at all.  However, if you wish to include Wikipedia pages in your software package, then you need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations.  It would also be a good idea to read the rest of Wikipedia:Copyrights, as well.  Any further questions you have would probably be better answered by posting at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights.  Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your talk page posts, like this: ~~~~. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software displaying Wikipedia content 

message: Here's what Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin says:
:GFDL 1.2 expressly says this: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." Seems clear to me that there's no need to amend 1.2 to allow use of 1.3. (That's certainly what the FSF intended.)
NCC-8765 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel 

message: The footer of Wikipedia says "# All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) " however the licence clearly states that this is not so :
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
this is a potential infringment of the FSF's rights
Scientus (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Good point. They asked me once to add the note "The license text is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." to the Arabic translation: "It has the problem that the license is GFDL (due to the standard link below on all Wikipedia articles)"--.--OsamaK 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah -- when GNU documents are linked elsewhere, it's generally to the FSF's authoritative version. I think this is an oversight that has been allowed to stand for a long time; we shouldn't be linking to a "better" wiki (as suggested above below), it should just link directly to the most authoritative version of the document. Which, I belive, is this. (Note, also, that Google search for GFDL returns the Wikipedia page higher than the FSF page...which is just wrong! And I think we're looking at the source of that problem right here.) -Pete (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people at WP:FORK do not regard linking to the GFDL at gnu.org as fully meeting the requirements of the GFDL either (2) to ensure "this license, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies" or (4H) to "include an unaltered copy of this License".  I think it is a sensible idea, but Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance suggests linking to an offsite GFDL only provides medium compliance with its terms. --Rumping (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect advertisement of the text under its own licence 

message: Given that this page should never be edited and that the edit protected user right may permit editing of it, I think it should be moved to the MediaWiki space to prevent accidental unprotection/editing of it. MBisanz talk 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simply, since this page should never be edited it should not be on a wiki that permits open editing .  It should be moved to http://www.wikimediafoundation.org . Putting it in the MediaWiki namespace is confusing because it's not a system message. Happy‑melon 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that would require the approval of Erik, and I suspect that could take awhile, as an interim move to the MediaWiki space where the Copyright and CopyrightWarning pages are while he thinks it over maybe? MBisanz talk 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as a particularly nasty problem, especially since it takes at least two blue moon cycles (and a superior conjunction with Venus to align the moonstones ) to get any configuration changes made such as the editprotected change would require.  Moving it to MediaWiki: would be actively confusing, however; it's not a system message or part of the interface, so it shouldn't be there, simple as that.  What makes you think that even if/when we do get an unbundled editprotected right that we'll immediately have a horde of editors coming to tweak this page? Happy‑melon 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just link to the FSF site, like everybody else does, like I suggested above? What would it take to get this done? -Pete (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, but let's try. Popular belief seems to be that links that play sound files need to be accompanied by a link to the file information, for attribution purposes. With an isolated sound file this is perhaps not a great problem, but when you have many such files on a page, these links become either extremely annoying or (if reduced to minimum size) simply confusing.
Look at the pronunciation information page WP:IPA for Polish. Here we have lots of little superscript (i)'s that link to information about the many sound files. BUT: (a) no-one would ever guess that that's what they link to; (b) they actually mislead since they look like part of the phonetic notation. This arrangement is surely not satisfactory for anyone.
My question is: would it be acceptable from a legal point of view to have such attribution links displayed not right next to the links that play the sound file, but listed explicitly at the bottom of the page for example? This could be done automatically by the software (with a note at the top of the page or of relevant sections directing people to the list at the bottom, if that's felt to be necessary). Such an arrangement would be better both from the point of view of attribution (since people would know what the links are), and from the point of view of article layout (since the links wouldn't have to be included in places where they only distract and mislead).--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media file attributions 

message: Please replace  with  to account for the update of the template . —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 December 2020