> > [...] You can't reuse an article safely without attaching the > > entire GFDL. [...] > > That applies to all copyright licenses, the GPL included.
> It doesn't apply to CC-by-sa. > Indeed it does. It is the whole point of a license, you cannot know > the license terms if you cannot see the license. > | * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to > | others the license terms of this work. The best way to > | do this is with a link to this web page. Er, no. A link to the licence web page is not including a copy of the whole licence. That's the point of CC-by-sa being considered a more sensible idea for Wikipedia than the present GFDL, which is technically "free" but is monstrously ill-suited to it. And you can do exactly the same thing with a GFDL work. For example, | A copy of the license is can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gfdl.txt instead of: | A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free | Documentation License.'' > Attaching the entire GFDL 1.2 text is not meaningfully "free" for > photos or single-page texts. And how do you reasonably implement it > for a motion picture. > This would fall under fair use. But I fail to see what a motion > picture has to do with this, if you use a copyrighted work, you have > to note that, and its license. No, you're answering something other than what I wrote. Wikimedia Commons includes images and motion pictures under the GFDL. The originals don't include the entire licence in the movie itself; how is this to be meaningfully reused? The answer in practice is "it isn't" - the licence fails in practice at reusability. See above. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
