Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Free Documentation License 1.3Free Documentation License 1.3Posted Nov 4, 2008 2:07 UTC (Tue) by slef (subscriber, #14720)Parent article: Free Documentation License 1.3
As I understand it, in the past, Wikipedia was relicensed from FDL+invariants to FDL without getting permission from all contributors. Why are they being so careful now when they weren't before (=why are they building a marble extension on a wooden shed?) and why is FSF bending the licence to help them?
Something smells bad.
(Log in to post comments)
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 3:47 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Well, it's IMO kind of bad-smelling that FSF has now twice made not-after-today's-date exceptions for specific groups in their licenses: once for the Novell-Microsoft agreement in GPL3, and once in GFDL for Wikipedia. I could really wish that they set the same rules for everyone.The reason it was done this time was that Wikipedia was not entirely happy with GFDL and asked FSF for a way out.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 12:02 UTC (Tue) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] It's still great news. Wikipedia is perhaps the largest body of work under the GFDL. I've been reluctant to contribute to it because of its license. If it changes to something free, I can finally embrace my inner editor.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 4:46 UTC (Tue) by TRS-80 (subscriber, #1804) [Link] What were the invariant sections in Wikipedia? The only anecdotal occurance I heard of was reverted not long after it was added.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 8:51 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
Wikipedia hasn't had any invariant sections for a long time. I don't know if it ever did.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 13:30 UTC (Tue) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
I think the only thing was that it didn't earlier explicitly state that no invariant sections shall be used.
Basically Wikipedia, and also myself somewhere, use the "GFDL with no invariant sections or front/back cover texts" license, which is quite ok as a license. The "DRM" text is indeed a bit bad, though, but it could be worse.
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 4, 2008 15:03 UTC (Tue) by slef (subscriber, #14720) [Link]
I had to go digging around because it seems wikipedia have rearranged their old emails archives and old links now go to irrelevant emails.
The invariant section was an HTML table - here's a copy from November 2001.
It was in place at least between 23 October 2001 (when I first find Wikipedia with something resembling a proper application of the FDL) and June 2002. See
Free Documentation License 1.3 Posted Nov 5, 2008 2:29 UTC (Wed) by TRS-80 (subscriber, #1804) [Link] Wow, I was completely unaware of that.
|
|
||||||||||||