WikiIndex

GFDL concerns: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

GFDL concerns (edit)

Revision as of 17:46, 10 August 2023

15 bytes added ,  10 August 2023
Fix red link following category rename
(Fix red link following category rename)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCright}}<!-- The author/contributor puts this material in the Public Domain. -->
{{TOC right}}<!-- The author/contributor puts this material in the Public Domain. -->
'''GFDL concerns''' — the idea behind '''[[GNU Free Documentation License]]''' ('''GFDL''', '''GNU FDL''') is:–  to make material public, freely available, in a [[:Category:Law|legalistic]], enforceable way.  The purpose of [[:Category:Copyright|copyright]], as manifested in the [[:Category:United States|United States of America]] (USA) currently, is to restrict usage, to give the [[owner]] maximal control in perpetuity.  GFDL is anti-copyright, an attempt to use the legal system and intellectual traditions to create a new class of material that is explicitly owned by us all in common, in perpetuity.  Derived works of many sorts are supposed to be facilitated, with the proviso that they all must be made equally {{tag|Free content|free}} and available for future derived uses.
'''GFDL concerns''' — the idea behind '''[[GNU Free Documentation License]]''' ('''GFDL''', or '''GNU FDL''') is:–  to make material public, freely available, in a [[:Category:Law|legalistic]], enforceable way.  The purpose of [[:Category:Copyright|copyright]], as manifested in the [[:Category:United States of America|United States of America]] (USA) currently, is to restrict usage, to give the [[owner]] maximal control in perpetuity.  GFDL is anti-copyright, an attempt to use the legal system and intellectual traditions to create a new class of material that is explicitly owned by us all in common, in perpetuity.  Derived works of many sorts are supposed to be facilitated, with the proviso that they all must be made equally {{tag|Free content|free}} and available for future derived uses.


But there seem to be serious problems with carrying out this general concept for [[:Category:Wiki|wikis]], with little sign that the problems are being addressed, either by those using GFDL; or by the creators of the GFDL.  Are the creators learning from how things are working out and trying to fix the problems?
But there seem to be serious problems with carrying out this general concept for [[:Category:Wiki|wikis]], with little sign that the problems are being addressed, either by those using GFDL; or by the creators of the GFDL.  Are the creators learning from how things are working out and trying to fix the problems?
Line 9: Line 9:
The main problems with GFDL {{tag|GNU license}} stem from the fact that it does not just create one giant pool of undifferentiated GFDL material.  If it did, all GFDL [[user]]s could simply keep all GFDL material properly segregated.  But GFDL contemplates an audit trail, with regard to the history, [[Editor|authors]], dedication annotations, etc of the material.  A simple concept.  More feasible with contemporary computers than previously.  But still almost impossible to actually implement fully.
The main problems with GFDL {{tag|GNU license}} stem from the fact that it does not just create one giant pool of undifferentiated GFDL material.  If it did, all GFDL [[user]]s could simply keep all GFDL material properly segregated.  But GFDL contemplates an audit trail, with regard to the history, [[Editor|authors]], dedication annotations, etc of the material.  A simple concept.  More feasible with contemporary computers than previously.  But still almost impossible to actually implement fully.


Currently, many [[:Category:Websites|websites]] take GFDL material without properly acknowledging it.  This is being addressed, e.g. by [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] sending legalistic notices to abusers.  Many websites take GFDL material and make some efforts to acknowledge it, in many cases not in as much detail as perhaps they should.  But no websites seem to take such material and keep track of it in as much detail as the concept actually requires.  The nub of the problem is successive copying.  Sites that take GFDL material merely point to the source, adequate as long as the source is intact and available, and as long as the material is not passed on.  But if a series of a dozen sites pass the material on to the next, and each one simply provides some references to the previous immediate source, the whole concept falls apart, as a practical matter, in terms of having a definite, dependable audit trail to the original authors, history, and dedications.  And if the material is substantially modified, at each intervening website, the challenges multiply.
Currently, many [[:Category:Website|websites]] take GFDL material without properly acknowledging it.  This is being addressed, e.g. by [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] sending legalistic notices to abusers.  Many websites take GFDL material and make some efforts to acknowledge it, in many cases not in as much detail as perhaps they should.  But no websites seem to take such material and keep track of it in as much detail as the concept actually requires.  The nub of the problem is successive copying.  Sites that take GFDL material merely point to the source, adequate as long as the source is intact and available, and as long as the material is not passed on.  But if a series of a dozen sites pass the material on to the next, and each one simply provides some references to the previous immediate source, the whole concept falls apart, as a practical matter, in terms of having a definite, dependable audit trail to the original authors, history, and dedications.  And if the material is substantially modified, at each intervening website, the challenges multiply.


But even that case is relatively minor.  It would be possible, both conceptually and technically, to actually keep passing on an ever more complex associated history package, even if that meant in most cases that the auxiliary material was orders of magnitude larger than the main content.
But even that case is relatively minor.  It would be possible, both conceptually and technically, to actually keep passing on an ever more complex associated history package, even if that meant in most cases that the auxiliary material was orders of magnitude larger than the main content.
Line 33: Line 33:
A related problem is that although the GFDL incorporates the concept of public, practical access to transparent computer files of the material, there does not seem to be a specific requirement to publish a unified database file of the entire GFDL material on a website, and few sites other than [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] offer such a public download.  So, although a GFDL webpage may in theory be copiable, few would wish to hassle with spidering an entire website to collect all of the GFDL material, and most websites would take technical measures to slow or thwart such spidering.  In cases where [[:Category:Wiki Creative Commons|Creative Commons]] (CC), GFDL, and other material is intermixed on a website, it might be impossible to automatically gather just the GFDL material externally.
A related problem is that although the GFDL incorporates the concept of public, practical access to transparent computer files of the material, there does not seem to be a specific requirement to publish a unified database file of the entire GFDL material on a website, and few sites other than [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] offer such a public download.  So, although a GFDL webpage may in theory be copiable, few would wish to hassle with spidering an entire website to collect all of the GFDL material, and most websites would take technical measures to slow or thwart such spidering.  In cases where [[:Category:Wiki Creative Commons|Creative Commons]] (CC), GFDL, and other material is intermixed on a website, it might be impossible to automatically gather just the GFDL material externally.


This problem at least could be solved.  There could be standardized ways to evaluate what third parties are archiving the material, how often, in ways that guarantee continued public access, regardless of what happens to the source.  All [[wiki]]s could be expected to divulge their internal power structure, how many individuals have direct control of the infrastructure.  All [[:Category:WikiFarm|wiki farms]] could be expected to provide, and guarantee independent, external backup of GFDL material.
This problem at least could be solved.  There could be standardized ways to evaluate what third parties are archiving the material, how often, in ways that guarantee continued public access, regardless of what happens to the source.  All [[wiki]]s could be expected to divulge their internal power structure, how many individuals have direct control of the infrastructure.  All [[:Category:Wiki farm|wiki farms]] could be expected to provide, and guarantee independent, external backup of GFDL material.


Future versions of the GFDL could, and should require that each collection of over 100 GFDL electronic documents offer clean, unified public downloads of large database files.  As long as all wikis did this, it would become much easier for the public to know whether any third parties were making and keeping copies of such material, and whether the files did indeed properly contain what they should.
Future versions of the GFDL could, and should require that each collection of over 100 GFDL electronic documents offer clean, unified public downloads of large database files.  As long as all wikis did this, it would become much easier for the public to know whether any third parties were making and keeping copies of such material, and whether the files did indeed properly contain what they should.
Line 42: Line 42:
*[[:Category: Wiki GNU Free Documentation License]] — for those wikis catalogued here on [[WikiIndex]] using the GFDL
*[[:Category: Wiki GNU Free Documentation License]] — for those wikis catalogued here on [[WikiIndex]] using the GFDL
*[[Template: GFDL]] — for tagging GFDL licensed images uploaded here on to WikiIndex
*[[Template: GFDL]] — for tagging GFDL licensed images uploaded here on to WikiIndex
*[https://www.GNU.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] Version 1.2, November 2002 — at GNU.org
*[https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] Version 1.2, November 2002 — at GNU.org
*{{Wp|GNU Free Documentation License}} article — at [[English Wikipedia]]
*{{Wp|GNU Free Documentation License}} article — at [[English Wikipedia]]
*{{Wp|Talk:GNU Free Documentation License}} — at English Wikipedia
*{{Wp|Talk:GNU Free Documentation License}} — at English Wikipedia
*[[Archive.org:20081028135056/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html|Why you shouldn't use the GNU FDL]] — by Nathanael Nerode, 2003 (CC-PD)
*[[Archive.org:20081028135056/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html|Why you shouldn't use the GNU FDL]] — by Nathanael Nerode, 2003 (CC-PD)
*[https://GPLv3.FSF.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html GNU Simpler Free Documentation License] — SFDLv1: Discussion Draft 1 of Version 1, 25 September 2006, at FSF.org
*[https://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html GNU Simpler Free Documentation License] — SFDLv1: Discussion Draft 1 of Version 1, 25 September 2006, at FSF.org
*{{Wp|GNU Simpler Free Documentation License}} — at English Wikipedia
*{{Wp|GNU Simpler Free Documentation License}} — at English Wikipedia
*{{Wp|Copyleft}} — at English Wikipedia
*{{Wp|Copyleft}} — at English Wikipedia
Retrieved from "https://wikiindex.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/220679...274744"