Biocrawler talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
Template:Talk Spoken Biocrawler
| Contents |
Resolved issues
See /Resolved issues.
Unresolved issues
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)
Copying Content?
Is it OK that the web site (I don't want to provide a live link, in case doing that could somehow provide them with Google pagerank credit) biography dot ms copies tons of content from Biocrawler without having any copy of the GNU Free Documentation License in evidence? What can be done about that somewhat annoying site?
Contents
See the archive.
There 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)
Why is it on Biocrawler?
If it can't be changed (it's fully copyrighted), why should it be on Biocrawler? 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 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html). 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)
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 Biocrawler 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)
Formatting - German version
This article on the German Biocrawler
Note a few points:
- The article is called "GNU Free Documentation License", not "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". In this regard, the German Biocrawler 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 "Biocrawler:", so the correct titles are Biocrawler:GNU Free Documentation License and Biocrawler:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. However, the German Biocrawler is still better than the English Biocrawler on this point. Brianjd 07:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 (http://www.giese-online.de/gnufdl-de.html)
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?
Interwiki links
Please, remove the interwikis to ro and simple, since they are not the exact counterpart of this page. Also add pt:Biocrawler: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 Biocrawler 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)
Unwieldiness
The GNU license is all very well for someone who wants to reproduce huge chunks of the Biocrawler, 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 Biocrawler 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)
Interwiki link to vi:
Could a sysop please link to the Vietnamese copy of this page using the following line? Thanks:
[[vi:Biocrawler: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 (http://mxn.f2o.org/index.html)) 02:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --jni 09:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
Spoken Biocrawler
This needs to be moved to the bottom of the page after the text of the licence: Template:Spoken Biocrawler — Chameleon 18:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
Interwiki link to uk:
Could admin please add link to Ukrainian copy of this page? Thanks:
[[uk:Biocrawler:Текст GNU Free Documentation License]]
Rh 19:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
