Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL

Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia: Screw with the GFDL

Screw with the GFDL

Wikipedia was informally released under the GFDL, though without the necessary license and copyright notice, which explicitly lists the Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts.

In October 2001 Bomis/Wales?/Sanger? asserted that to use Wikipedia content on another site an ugly HTML table, modelled after the DMoz table, must be included on every page which uses Wikipedia content. And this is under the title "How to Use Wikipedia Content in Compliance with the GNU FDL", which is an utter falsehood, as the requirement is totally in conflict with both the intent and the letter of the GFDL.

As SJK wrote in GNU Free Documentation License/Talk:

[The GFDL] says you can require the document to be distributed with unmodifiable appendices or front-matter sections. I don't think placing a logo on EVERY page can be considered an appendix or a front-matter section. It also seems to imply that the originally released copy of the document would include these sections, but I don't see any of these tables on www.wikipedia.com. It also requires a specific notice naming those invariant sections, which is nowhere found on Wikipedia. Finally, the point remains is that when I at least submitted content to Wikipedia, there was no mention of these optional provisions of the license being used, even though they might be allowed to be by the terms of the license. So I can't see how they can legally be imposed in relation to content authored by me without my consent. The same goes for anyone else who disagrees with the table requirement.

Note from Jimbo: I disagree very very very strongly with the characterization below, and all I can do is invite The Cunctator to stop posting his accusations here, and to post them in the appropriate place -- the mailing list. This comes very close to slander, as it accuses me of a license violation or attempt thereof. That's a very serious accusation, and I don't think you should make it so lightly. O.k.? Now come to the mailing list where we can have a civilized discussion of your objections. -- Jimbo Wales

Why is the mailing list an appropriate place? Because it's not as public? --TheCunctator

When things get heated, conducting slanging matches in public is not productive and damages the image of projects. If somebody wants to argue freely, and it is believed that taking the argument private will allow a more forthright, speedier discussion and resolution of the issues, what's the great harm? You just can't discuss *everything* with the world watching. Even Debian has a debian-private mailing list. --Robert Merkel

---

This is ridiculous. SJK is not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith; he is simply raising some concerns. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jimbo, Larry and/or Bomis are "screw[ing] with the GFDL", or that they are not acting in good faith, but you're making it sound as if "Bomis/Wales/Sanger" are pulling some dirty, covert scheme. This is simply dishonest. Why don't you discuss and debate your concerns rather than writing slanderous essays? --STG

I am not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith; I am simply raising some concerns. I am discussing and debating my concerns. And I waited several days after these concerns were first raised for Jimbo, Larry and/or Bomis to respond to them. They have not. A demonstration of their good faith would be to remove the table requirement text until all of the concerns raised by various people have been addressed, rather than forcing people with honest concerns to be discussing a fait accompli. --TheCunctator