GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit

Posted Nov 10, 2008 7:18 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
In reply to: GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit by rahulsundaram
Parent article: GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit

The reciprocative nature of the license is important and has enabled others who consume wikipedia to contribute back their changes to the common pool without taking advantage of the work for their sole benefit.

I don't see how. I think the contributions to Wikipedia would have been the same if it were in the public domain.

In fact, even if the Wikimedia Foundation managed copyright on the whole thing the way Encyclopedia Brittanica does, I'll bet it would still have substantially the same participation.

to post comments

GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit

Posted Nov 10, 2008 7:24 UTC (Mon) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't see how. I think the contributions to Wikipedia would have been the same if it were in the public domain. I have to agree with this , I think a lot of the contributors don't think about it. I know I haven't when I've contributed in the past.

GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit

Posted Nov 10, 2008 7:59 UTC (Mon) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link] (1 responses)

An example: Germany's leading news site Spiegel Online once ran a "background article" on Iraq that turned out to be an edited and slightly extended version of the German Wikipedia article on the country, without crediting the source. If Wikipedia's content would be public domain, Spiegel would have got away with it. Thanks to the GFDL-copyleft, the site not only had to publish an excuse and credit the source, but had to put its own article under the GFDL so that Spiegel's improvements of the text could be put back into Wikipedia.

GFDL 1.3: Wikipedia's exit permit

Posted Nov 10, 2008 17:55 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

That's a good example, but it's also crucial to know whether someone actually did copy Spiegel's slight extensions into Wikipedia; if not, the GFDL didn't help Wikipedia at all; it just allowed Wikipedia to be a dog in a manger.

Assuming someone did, then it's still just an example of Wikipedia made better by copyleft (as opposed to public domain), and still leaves me very skeptical that Wikipedia is made possible by copyleft. To believe that Wikipedia wouldn't exist, or would have substantially different character, if copyleft licensing didn't exist (which seems to be Lessig's claim), I'd have to believe that huge numbers of people who today contribute to Wikipedia would in the public domain case write for the likes of Spiegel instead. I can see that Spiegel could pay more if it had exclusive use of the work, but I don't see it being enough to have a noticeable effect.