Difference between revisions of "GNU Free Documentation License"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Started adding some explanation of the red tape - the article didn't actually say ''why'' the GFDL is so complex and burdensome!)
(→‎Uptake of the GFDL: Expanded this. I have a few software manuals that use the GFDL but no one in their right mind (except Wikipedia) would use it for anything else!)
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
== Uptake of the GFDL ==
 
== Uptake of the GFDL ==
−
It is rare to see a book or educational material that is based on reuse of material provided under this license.  [[Conservapedia]] has rejected the GFDL as unnecessarily complex and too restrictive.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright</ref>
+
The GFDL was only ever intended to be used in software documentation,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:GNU_Free_Documentation_License&oldid=626654</ref> and it is quite widely used by the GNU project for this purpose.  It is rare, however, to see books or educational material (except for a few software manuals) that make use of the license.
 +
 
 +
Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia controversially uses the GFDL, despite the fact it was never intended for use with such a project.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:GNU_Free_Documentation_License&oldid=626654</ref> This forces the users of Wikipedia to include vast lists of "authors" and the text of the license whenever they copy its content.  In this respect, GFDL documents are very similar to a [[chain letter]].  In stark contrast, [[Conservapedia]] has rejected the GFDL as unnecessarily complex and too restrictive. Instead, <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright</ref> they believe that good faith use should not be hindered by red tape.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AGNU_Free_Documentation_License&diff=626785&oldid=626777</ref>
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==

Revision as of 16:28, February 18, 2009

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is promoted by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. as a way supposedly to facilitate the free use and modification of textual information.[1] It is modeled after the approach taken by free software developers to encourage improvements and use of free software, despite fundamental differences between editing and using text rather than software. But in fact its red tape and tricky restrictions have limited its usefulness.

The rules of the GFDL

The GFDL license is complex and burdensome, and difficult for teachers to use.

  • Every person who has worked on the text must be credited whenever it is published. There are several obvious problems with this:
    1. It can obviously lead to huge lists of authors being included with every copy of the document, even if they only made minor changes (spelling, punctuation etc).
    2. Simple copy-editors are given the same amount of credit as the people who potentially spent years writing the text.
    3. Traditionally published books give clear and simple credit to the main author(s). GFDL documents don't
  • Every change must be logged, no matter how trivial. A situation could easily result, where a short document is accompanied by hundreds of pages of "change logs".
  • All derivative works are forced to use the GFDL. This obviously cripples the chances of small organisations (schools, church groups etc...) protecting their intellectual property under copyright law if they choose to incorporate GFDL material in their work.

Uptake of the GFDL

The GFDL was only ever intended to be used in software documentation,[2] and it is quite widely used by the GNU project for this purpose. It is rare, however, to see books or educational material (except for a few software manuals) that make use of the license.

Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia controversially uses the GFDL, despite the fact it was never intended for use with such a project.[3] This forces the users of Wikipedia to include vast lists of "authors" and the text of the license whenever they copy its content. In this respect, GFDL documents are very similar to a chain letter. In stark contrast, Conservapedia has rejected the GFDL as unnecessarily complex and too restrictive. Instead, [4] they believe that good faith use should not be hindered by red tape.[5]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt
  2. ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:GNU_Free_Documentation_License&oldid=626654
  3. ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:GNU_Free_Documentation_License&oldid=626654
  4. ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright
  5. ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AGNU_Free_Documentation_License&diff=626785&oldid=626777
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=GNU_Free_Documentation_License&oldid=626846"