Wikipedia talk:Verbatim copying under the GFDL

message: edit summary: "some changes and removals to clarify what the GFDL says"... yeah, I'd like more explanation than that, please.
Some content regards the handling of links - removed the two legally questionable exceptions. Why? Section two just says "verbatim copying". Verbatim means "word for word", so it should be entirely possible to change formatting details like links while still making a verbatim copy. This is what happens when I take a print out of a Wikipedia page, for example.
"Wikipedia's current License and Copyright Statement is itself questionable" - just removed. Well, it is questionable, certainly. Would you like me to explain why?
"Embedding a Wikipedia Document within a larger webpage" - removed "legally questionable". Well, it is questionable - the question is whether such embeds are considered "aggregation" or "derivative works". That question would have to be resolved in court - there have been some cases around this subject, IIRC, but nothing conclusive.
"Relying on Wikipedia is legally questionable because pages on Wikipedia may be deleted from public view" - removed. Well, why? This is just true - some pages on Wikipedia are deleted, and to the extent that this happens, Wikipedia will not be a machine-readable copy of the distributed text, and thus the sublicensee will not be in compliance with the text of the GFDL. So, it's questionable. People can do this, but they need to be aware that there may be issues with doing so. Martin 22:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and removals 

message: I have a small static site called [fixed reference] which I am trying to keep compliant with the various developments in interpretation of licence, but I have to say that the history is the most problematic. In principle I don't see why this discussion assumes the edit history contains adequate history in evolution of the article: a lot of the text is built by team on the talk pages as well: do we need local copies of all versions of all those to be compliant? I for one do not want future users of my work to have to carry hundreds of pages of discussion and versions around before they are allowed to use it and trying to include all this in, say, a CD version for schools is ridiculous: so what do we do? What if there is indecent material in the discussion pages: are we legally obliged to include it in a version for five year olds? Britannica must be laughing all the way to the bank. I would take an aggressive line that stating the content comes from WikiPedia and that WP will prvide the next step of information up the chain. This is the only workable route for this project to have any value to anyone. 99% of it comes under the additional agreement submitters have accepted "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." in any case. --BozMo|talk 09:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd want you to make available a copy of every version of the document which ever existed, since that's what the history does. It's also what I'd do if setting up a mirror... . But so long as you linked to a copy of the history somewhere, I'd be happy enough and I expect most of the other authors to have the same view. You need the complete history, including every difference between revisions, to track who is the copyright holder for each portion and to preserve both the ability to deal with copyright infringment and the moral rights of authors to be associated with their works - which appears to be the fundamental purposes of the history section in the GFDL. The talk pages are not considered part of the encyclopedia, so no, you don't need to include them. The "additional agreement" you referenced is not an additional legal agreement but a caution that this is a wiki, added to stop people from being too concerned about others modifying what they write, after some people took an excessive territorial interest in their own wording. The legal agreement is the GFDL. Jamesday 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we serious?

message: * The "Title Page" is the text just below the title, before the start of the article proper. This is currently "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", but was previously (briefly) "Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth", etc.
If I remember correctly, then on the MonoBook skin, for a short while, there was no "Title Page".
* Where Wikipedia has imported text from a third party, such as Nupedia, the Title Page may additionally extend to some italicised block text immediately after the title, and before the start of the main text.
That seems a bit vague. I would expect at least a link to an example of such an article ("Document" according to the GFDL). Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
:I looked at some articles linking to Nupedia, and italicized texts were after the main text. I suppose that is technically not very good, though it is hard to miss that piece of text anyway.  Tomos 10:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Page

message: If you accept this interpretation, then you would need to print out the entire "page history" of the article (you may need to URL-hack to get the entire page history on a single webpage).
This is unacceptable. I don't think this needs much explanation. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
:I'm confused.  Say I want to collect a number of entries and compile them into a academic study book for my church group.  This book would be made available for purchase on a printing service like LuLu.  Would I be required to print the complete text of the "history" tab for each entry?  As I understand the discussion above, that would make printed reproduction of any wikipedia entry nearly impossible.  We can't have 1,000 line entries for each page of definition.  Obviously I donn't want to violate any user obligations.
In any event, your ability to redistribute Wikipedia articles beyond the terms of the GFDL are extended (at least in the United States) by the fair use and first-sale doctrines.
I don't know much about those but I presume that they are subject to change. Why are we singling out the United States here? Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
:I think it is okay to add non-US examples. But there seems to me an uncertainty what the relevant law would be when a user outside of the US uses Wikipedia contents and Wikimedia Foundation finds it a breach of the license. Always U.S. law? Depends on where the breach happens? I don't know. But it seems there is a fair chance that U.S. law is the strongest candidate for the governing law in case of some dispute. And that is perhaps why. I hope I knew better. Tomos 10:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Printed copies

message: I've removed the vague sentence, "In any event, your ability to redistribute Wikipedia articles beyond the terms of the GFDL are extended (at least in the United States) by the fair use and first-sale doctrines."  Fair use rights are limited, and there is no guarantee it will apply to the redistribution.  First-sale doctrine does not apply unless they are transferring the copy they have(without keeping their own).  Of course, they might then get another copy, but on the whole things somewhat questionable.  At any rate, we don't need to encourage GFDL non-compliance.  Als I'd like to address the "copying in quantity" section.  The GFDL text says in the "verbatim copying" section, "If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3."  It doesn't say if you distribute a large enough number of printed copies, so I think this applies in general to web sites too.  The "Copying in quantity" section contains the text "If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers)...".  That paragraph (and the closely related following one) doesn't apply to web sites.  However, I think the next part, which says, "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material."  I think that applies to all copies.  I've tried to clarify the situation on the page by moving some things around. Please look over the Wikipedia:Verbatim copying#Copying in quantity and Wikipedia:Verbatim copying#Printed copies sections and see what you think. Superm401 | Talk 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Redistribution and Copying in Quantity

message: It seems that  is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia's Wine_making article. There's no license or source information on vinopinions.org, at least none that I can find. I'm sure there must be a process for reporting and investigating this, but I can't find it. Gregmg 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Martin 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do about copied material?

message: Am I allowed to copy an article and then change the content?
:Yes.  You must follow the same conditions for Verbatim copying, except that you must also follow the requirements in section 4 of the GFDL.  See Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Superm401 - Talk 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I've added the "essay" template to this page.  Previously it was not clear whether or not this page was intended to be "official" policy or not.  Looking at the page history, the page has not been worked on by many editors, and it doesn't look to me that it has received detailed scrutiny from experts in the topic, or from the Wikimedia foundation.  So for the time being, I think it's best to view it as an opinion piece - hence the essay template.  Ideally it might be good to get more input from experts, or the Wikimedia foundation, for this page. Enchanter 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay template 

message: : There have been objections to including this text at mirrors because in web searches a page with this text will appear to be the original at wikipedia.org, misleading people about where they are going to go if they follow the link. Including this text may be a trademark infringement.
Given that it is mandatory to include this text in order to satisfy the GFDL, surely the Wikimedia foundation must grant permission to use the Wikipedia trademark in that way? Martin
:I would have thought that saying that an article copied from Wikipedia is "From Wikipedia" is a simple statement of fact, and wouldn't be a trademark infringement.  The "objection" doesn't make much sense to me either.  Enchanter 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  == "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" == 

message: Whilst running a Google search on the Rapier missile I came across the following copy  on an advertising website which omits the GFDL licence. Does anyone enforce the licence requirements ? John 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright owner(s), typically the major contributors to the article in question, may choose to enforce their license if they wish, but are not required to do so. There is a page on wikipedia mirrors at WP:MIRROR. Martin 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of breach of GFDL ?