Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Protected Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents

[edit] See also

[edit] Resolved issues

See /Resolved issues.

[edit] Unresolved issues

[edit] GNU Image

If you go to the GNU website, they have the gnu image, i think this article would be more complete with it Xexos Jan 9, 05

Over a year late, but I agree.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Still no image. hmmm... Sasank 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify????

There has been some controversy over whether to wikify this page. See the archive.

I still think that a links section should be added below the text. Brianjd 04:30, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong with that. The German page does it - see #Formatting - German version. Brianjd 08:28, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

I've added a "see also" section to the to of the talk page, which I believe should be included in the article.

[edit] GNU Image

I'm really concerned about GNU not that I don't mind sharing information I put on Wikipedia but now the sort of websites that are made just to put ads on are using it. I thought I was sharing information here not helping people make $$$$. 66.167.29.136 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help with Patent Version

As part of a class at Harvard Law, a class open to anyone, Prof. Charles Nesson are asking for help creating a similar version of this license for a patent that he and others have recently acquired. If you want to help, go to the website (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/wiki/The_Open_Patent_Project) of the Open Patent Project. 140.247.249.130 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents

See the archive.

فاهس ه س صاشف ه شة يخهىل اثقثThere wasn't much discussion before and I don't understand it. I don't think the table of contents is appropriate - it seems to be changing the license, which is not allowed. --Brianjd 08:23, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it on Wikipedia?

÷ب هف ؤشىطف لاث ؤاشىلثي )هفطس بعممغ ؤخحغقهلافثي(و صاغ ساخعمي هف لاث خى صهنهحثيهش؟ ًث ساخعمي سهةحمغ مهىن فخ فاث مهؤثىسث If it can't be changed (it's fully copyrighted), why should it be on Wikipedia? We should simply link to the license text on the GNU website from the main GFDL article. Or if we do keep it, a Used under Fair Use notice needs to be added. --Luke 15:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not used under fair use. It used under the license which says "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed" (which is one reason that the page is protected)
Secondly, we have to keep a local copy, not a link to the external one to meet the terms of the GFDL; "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document..." --Angela. 19:55, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Except that it at the bottom of the page it says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". --Luke 02:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is NOT on http://wikimediafoundation.org/, as far as I know. The links at the bottom of pages on that site point to FDL link. I don't know how other wikis handle this. Why the inconsistency? --Brianjd
It still doesn't seem to be there - links down the bottom point to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. --Brianjd 04:31, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
"we have to keep a local copy"; I don't think this means it has to be in the form of a wikipedia article. The simplest solution would be to link it as a plain text (.txt) file. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 15:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The GFDL itself requires that the license be distributed along with the text, therefore we must indeed have it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear User:Angela, I think the phrase "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document..." cannot force anyone to follow those method to use the license, i.e., FSF can't sue anyone using GFDL without follow the GFDL method. This is because FSF doesn't own those GFDL'ed documents.
Secondly, that phrase is not the real requirement of the GFDL, it's just a part of an Addendum. However, the real requirement identical to that phrase is placed the section 4 of GFDL:
  • H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
This phrase is one of the requirement for anyone who want to redistribute the modified version of the Document, or else they can be sued by the author who own the copyright of the Document. But it is not a requirement for the copyright owner themselves, to include the verbatim copy of the GFDL License in their GFDL'ed document, because no one can enforce or sue them (except themselves), since the owners of the Document are themselves. Nevertheless, the owners who doesn't do this GFDL requirement, can render their documents to have an invalid licenses, since the users can't find the source of the licenses to read. But I think the owners can have a choice to express in the "license notice", a pointer to where the full License can be found (like the method suggested in GPL[1]).
However, since no one will eventually own the whole wikipedia article, so it is a best practice to place the GFDL here.
From Luke's question, he has noticed that the bottom of this article say something like "All text is available under GFDL", that can make the reader misunderstand that this GFDL verbatim is available under GFDL. But if we regard this article as a page to meet the GFDL requirement section 4H, this mean that it is a GFDL exception that the section that include the GFDL verbatim itself is non-alterable (This requirement is alike to the "Invariant Section"). The reader (who notices the license notice at the bottom of this GFDL verbatim page (which act as an virtually invariant section of wikipedia)) must read GFDL carefully to realize this.
--Ans 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting how Wikipedia works. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't own the copyright of the articles. The contributors, such as me and you, do. They can distribute our work under the terms of the GFDL. If that isn't good enough from you, remember that Wikipedia also uses external GFDL sources. Therefore, if we didn't have the Text of the GFDL, those sources could sue is. See for example, the Reginald Bamford article. The WCF licensed a version of it under the GFDL. Superm401 | Talk 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Superm401, yes, what I've said is the same as you said for Wikipedia case. The contributors own the copyright. --Ans 08:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Even if this doesn't apply, some of our articles are modified versions of Nupedia articles, that we are modifying and redistributing under GFDL4. Martin 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should have the license on a URL such as http://en.wikipedia.org/gnu.txt, not part of the actual wiki. Quite personally, I think that the formatting on Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License looks ugly. --Ixfd64 02:27, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Formatting that we may not change. Martin 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modified Versions - different title!?

If I publish a Modified Version of a Document, why do I have to get permission to use the same title? I've seen copyrighted texts with the same title and I'm sure the authors/publishers did not have to get permission! --Brianjd

I am not sure what kind of answer you are looking for, if at all, but the intent of this particular provision is to make sure that an evil commercial publisher/media conglomerate cannot overwhelm the market with their copy of a GFDL'd document and make previous version created by a freedom-loving author look like an illegitimate copy or minor variant. Changing the title, along with preserving the history, its network location, stating at least the five principal authors of the previous version, etc. is a measure to protect freedom, I think. Of course, if this protection is beneficial for Wikipedia and its contributors is an another question. --Tomos 04:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that's very likely to happen if they also comply with the GFDL. --Brianjd 09:00, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I agree. GFDL feels often too protective of authors to me at the cost of licensee's freedom/flexibility of use. --Tomos 10:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rubbish. In keeping with the spirit of the GFDL, most of the authors will be licensees as well. It's not really protective of most authors. --Brianjd 08:30, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)


[edit] Formatting - German version

This article on the German Wikipedia

Note a few points:

  1. The article is called "GNU Free Documentation License", not "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". In this regard, the German Wikipedia is more closely adhering to the license, since it is supposed to be contained in a section of the former title.
    The titles actually include "Wikipedia:", so the correct titles are Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. However, the German Wikipedia is still better than the English Wikipedia on this point. Brianjd 07:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  2. The license has been changed by adding spaces to the start of some lines, however, this appears to be so trivial that it won't cause any problems.
    It's certainly more trivial than any changes resulting from the table of contents (see above). Brianjd 07:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  3. The formatting seems better and there is additional information above it, although I don't know what it is. Brianjd 09:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Unofficial German translation

Notice that in the first paragraph, the name "GNU Free Documentation License" is in italics. In the second paragraph, which is presumedly just the first translated into German (never assume something is true even if it seems obvious, I don't understand German), there is no special formatting. How should it be formatted?

to 3.: The notice at the top of the de: version means "The following is the English-language original text of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation). An inofficial translation is located here. Also have a look on the copyright page." TZMT (de:T) 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

Please, remove the interwikis to ro and simple, since they are not the exact counterpart of this page. Also add pt:Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License.

In the case of Simple English, there is an exact counterpart of this page, with a link to the Simple English version, so change the interwiki link to the exact counterpart.

The Romanian Wikipedia does not have an exact counterpart, it seems. The current link is better than nothing, isn't it? --Brianjd 07:23, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Also, of course, the link to the German page above should be added. --Brianjd 08:19, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
I have added the pt: and de: links and adjusted the link to simple version to bypass a redirect. I think the simple: link should continue to point to their simplified translation, the original copy in simple is just a duplicate of this page. I Agree with Brianjd that the current ro: is better than nothing, so left that intact. --jni 09:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Unwieldiness

The GNU license is all very well for someone who wants to reproduce huge chunks of the Wikipedia, but what about the poor soul who'd just like to distribute copies of one one-page article (to a class, for example) and has to append a 12-page license? Shouldn't there be some provision for incorporation by reference? (I understand Wikipedia isn't in charge of this, but still.) --Deirdre Golash 03:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the many problems of the GFDL. If I was a teacher distributing copies of an article to a class I certainly wouldn't bother with any such bureaucracy. Compiling some sort of print edition (like a WikiReader: this has been done) is a different matter, particularly if it's being sold for profit. Note that when you print a copy of an article from the website you are just left with the usual footer: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." If the printer then hands this article to a family member or something this is probably a violation of copyright in strict legal terms, but who knows and, it seems, who cares? I say that because the Wikimedia Foundation's procedures for dealing with mirror sites that don't respect the terms of the GFDL seem very patchy and ad hoc, and these sites are much more significant than the occasional copyvio-ing teacher. It bothers me that people no different from spammers can reproduce my articles with a minuscule copyright notice at the bottom, if they bother with one at all, but if teachers are printing my articles for educational purposes on a small scale and are not bothering to credit me, or if someone produces and sells a print edition that clearly indicates where the material is from and makes no attempt to obfuscate its origins or the nature of the project, then I'm happy. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Interwiki link to vi:

Could a sysop please link to the Vietnamese copy of this page using the following line? Thanks:

[[vi:Wikipedia:Nguy%C3%AAn v%C4%83n Gi%E1%BA%A5y Ph%C3%A9p S%E1%BB%AD D%E1%BB%A5ng V%C4%83n B%E1%BA%A3n T%E1%BB%B1 Do GNU]]

All those encoded characters are there because this wiki can't handle Unicode, by the way. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. --jni 09:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

I am not very cood comprehending legalese- could someone provide a short summary here? (I'd say put it in the article, but is protected.) --maru 15:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Any summary would be a violation of our prohibition on providing legal advice. See Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. If you would like a summary or interpretaion, we suggest that you contact a legal professional. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be possible, however to explain the ideals behind the GFDL, which are best covered on the wikipedia article on the subject: this is the wikipedia article

[edit] Spoken Wikipedia

This needs to be moved to the bottom of the page after the text of the licence:

Spoken Wikipedia
This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2005-05-28, and may not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

— Chameleon 18:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FSF's new adress

The GPL, LGPL and GFDL have been minorly updated by the FSF to cover their new adress; this version uses the old one. Should it be edited? --Kiand 23:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I'll post it to admin noticeboard. Superm401 | Talk 04:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to uk:

Could admin please add link to Ukrainian copy of this page? Thanks:

[[uk:Wikipedia:Текст GNU Free Documentation License]]

Rh 19:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- llywrch 7 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)

And

[[zh:Wikipedia:GNU自由文档许可证文本]]--zy26 was here. 01:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Done :) --Dmcdevit·t 01:53, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my proposals

I made a temporary version of the page, Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License/temp, for my proposals.

Basically, all I did was toned town the formatting a bit, updated the categories, added some HTML comments, and added a link back to the original version on the GNU official site.

What do you think? --Ixfd64 02:12, 2005 August 19 (UTC)


[edit] Spoken Word

Why is the spoken word article on the talk page rather than on the article page? --BozMo|talk 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Because adding it to the project page would change the contents of the text, which isn't allowed. --Kwekubo 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wikisource

No, it can't (only) be on Wikisource. The GFDL whas to be with the applicable document, and the document is Wikipedia, not Wikisource. Superm401 | Talk 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link

Can somebody link to : <>[[ms:Wikipedia:Teks Lesen Dokumentasi Bebas GNU]] <>

ThanksYosri 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

The article caries a {{shortcut}}, but the shortcut isn't a wikilink, as is it's suggested use.

Thanks. I've wikified it. Superm401 - Talk 23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add template please?

Template:Wikipedia copyright FT2 (Talk | email) 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 32 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act

If for the purposes of educational research may I change this text in a format for private study and revision as approved in Sections 29 & 32 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act?

Can I adapt this in order to save ink wastage by removing the credits and Copyrights etc. for my notes?

[edit] Header numbering

  • I added the above template as this page needs administrator attention to the issues below (mainly the GNU image), and the header wikicode on each section is causing subsection titles like 1 0. PREAMBLE where the 1 is generated by Wikipedia, and the 0. is part of the original text of the license. I propose that this be reduced to 0. Preamble (and similar for the other subsection titles), and I don't foresee any objection (if this change may be controversial, feel free to propose it here and call for comments). --Draicone (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is because you have enabled "Auto-number heading" in your preferences. As far as I know this cannot be disabled on specific page. —Ruud 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erm, what the heck is this?

I came across this article by accident. Without any introduction, without any wikifying and full of jargon and legalese, it's impossible to know what the heck this is. --Dweller 10:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out the title of the page? All the text on Wikipedia is released under this licence, and part of the terms of it are that it be included in any such material, in unaltered form. -Splash - tk 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... I don't understand the title of the page. I understand all the words (except "GNU") just not what they mean in conjunction with one another. Thanks for the explanation. Why can't the article say that (and define GNU)? --Dweller 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not an article in the usual sense. Pages that begin with the Wikipedia: prefix are administrative pages (or other, non-encyclopedia pages). The article version is at Gnu Free Documentation License, which will make more sense. This particular adminstrative page is the necessary inclusion in the combined work of its licensing terms under which other people may use the material they find here. It is a legal statement. Moreover, the GFDL itself is not allowed to be modified, since it requires that all work be released under "exactly this" license, so including any other material would be either inappropriate or illegal. Basically, this page is, literally, exactly what it says in the title, and only that. Nothing else is allowed to be here. (Hence all the legalese: this is where it belongs!) -Splash - tk 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't an italicised heading be put on the page directing confused people to Gnu Free Documentation License? --Dweller 09:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Википедија:GNU Free Documentation License]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done Done. —Mets501 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eu interwiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GNU Dokumentazio Librearen Lizentziaren testua. Thanks. Berria · (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Netsnipe ► 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

If this is policy, lets add the Template:policy and the Template:policylist. Fresheneesz 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not policy in the way that other pages are. This is a legal document that describes the license of content on Wikipedia. Template:Policy would be completely inappropriate, and Template:Policylist is a bad idea on most policy pages anyway. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured this wasn't policy, but its listed under the Wikipedia:List of policies, so i figured i should ask. If you're going to say somethings bad, give a reason - your personal opinion is unimportant without it (a reason). But you can answer that on my talk page. Fresheneesz 00:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. It is part of the policy of the website and is a Foundation legal issue. If you look at the bottom of any of the pages, it states that all text is licensed under the GFDL and links to this very page. It happens to be on the wiki for practical reasons, but the page is permanently protected from editing. This page is outside of the Wikipedia encyclopedia and its internal processes. —Centrx→talk • 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Link to Gnu Free Documentation License?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to link to the article Gnu Free Documentation License? so Newbs who stumble in here understand what this page is? Borisblue 20:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

2 words, mate. Be Bold. If you think it should be added, go right ahead. It can't hurt. Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 10:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. In this document, making changes could be a breach of the terms of the license which forbids any changes to it. This is not an encyclopedia article, and is not, despite the note at the bottom of the page, released under the GFDL. We should not be changing the source code of the license any more than we absolutely must to make it appear properly on screen. We can live without the bluelink.
  2. Most people can't be bold on this page. It is fully protected, because of (1).
Splash - tk 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand, and that's the reason I asked. But would adding a short bluelink before the license starts be any more of a breach than the shortcut:WP:GFDL box?Borisblue 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please to interwiki adding

cs:Wikipedie:GNU_Free_Documentation_License, el:Βικιπαίδεια:GNU_Free_Documentation_License, ja:Wikipedia:Text of GNU Free Documentation License, no:Wikipedia:GNU_FDL, nn:Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License_tekst, pl:Wikipedia:Tekst_licencji_GNU_Free_Documentation_License, sv:Wikipedia:Texten_till_GNU_Free_Documentation_License

--Sig0 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

sk:Wikipédia:GNU Free Documentation License. ~~helix84 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Martinp23 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate content on this page

I think somebody has messed with this page. When I first loaded it I had a massive pornographic image pop up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.11.148.226 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

They messed with {{Shortcut}}. 66.82.9.88 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I copy and paste content to wikipedia.org from wikia.com?

They both use GNU GPL... Zephyr103 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can, but don't forget to give the appropriate attribution. At least you should mention the source page in your edit summary. --Donar Reiskoffer 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
They both use the GFDL, not the GPL. Superm401 - Talk
This is just as well, as the GPL is incompatible with the GFDL. Martin 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Croatian language Wikipedia. The link is: [[hr:Wikipedija:Tekst GNU Free Documentation License]]

Thanks. Andrej Šalov 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/x/Wikipedia_talk%7EText_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License_415a.html"