Toby Bartels wrote: Can you direct me to a specific url where I can learn more about why RMS believes that Invariant Sections are an absolute necessity? --Jimbo

(thanks, I'm still reading all this) Or perhaps we can offer a way out of this mess to all parties, based on this: In http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00582.html RMS wrote, As far as I'm concerned *our* beef with the GNU FDL is not about invariant sections per se, but about license incompatibility. We'd like for people to be able to cut and paste text back and forth with relative easy from documents under GNU FDL and CC Attribution-Share Alike. Our other complaint is about the *complexity* of the license, which is long and tedious and clearly written from a perspective of a 'manual' or 'documentation'. Elsewhere, Stallman points out that the invariant section 'problem' wouldn't resolve the 'length of license' problem, since it's 8 pages, and the invariant section stuff is a lot shorter. What might work out for everyone would be the creation of an 'LFDL', for "Lesser FDL", similar in spirit and motivation to the "LGPL". And Stallman can recommend that people not use it, while simulteneously acknowledging that it can be useful in some contexts. I think a big selling point is that while free software is now well-established and not a radical concept, free texts like Wikipedia are still relatively new and unheard of, outside of free software documentation, and that this budding movement has different needs that need to be addressed if the idea of freedom is to grow in this arena. In code, cutting and pasting and creating a derivative work out of the middle of one program into the middle of another program isn't often very useful. Each program has it's own variable names, structure, requirements. Code re-use is possible, but is usually accomplished with dynamic or static linking. In our case, the case of text, that kind of cutting and pasting is central to what we do. A person writing an article about Iraq may wish to very quickly and effectively adapt a CC BY-SA licensed work by adding a few paragraphs of lightly edited Wikipedia background information. So license incompatibility is a growing problem for us. Yes, but there's a solution to that, at least I think so. Anything released under FDL 1.x or 2.0 with no invariant sections, no Front-Cover texts, and no Back-Cover texts can be distributed under the terms of LFDL 2.0 *or* FDL 2.0. Anything release under FDL 1.x with invariant sections can be released under FDL 2.0. And then LFDL can be simpler and worded carefully so as to maximize compatibility with CC SA. A similar change would need to be made to CC SA 2.0, so that it would allow for relicensing under LFDL. --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote in part: To provide context, this discussion is about incompatibility between the various GNU licences (FDL and GPL). Of course, we don't have to mention that when we quote it back to him and say �Isn't intercompatibility with non-GNU copyleft licences a good idea?�. ^_^ Agreed. I don't like the IS (and related) features of the GNU FDL, but they're not the big deal. I like this idea, and your reasons for it. Now who can sell it to RMS? Of course, we need GNU -- we can't just write it ourselves -- for this reason: I can't say that I've read anything from RMS suggesting that he would never agree to this. I don't suppose that he'll like it at first, but we do have our reasons. It's not like he's an obstinate, stubborn ideologue -- rather a thoughtful, open-minded ideologue. ^_^ I really don't know anything about CC's Lawrence Lessig. Given the internecine political battles between "free" and "open", does anybody know how RMS and Lessig feel about each other? (I mean in particular �I trust this organisation to do good licences, at least to whatever degree is necessary for the LFDL to work in the end.�.) I know that Lessig wrote the foreword to RMS's collected essays; but OTOH, Lessig says "open" rather than "free" now. -- Toby

This is the sort of thing that has publishers, and the likes of HP and Microsoft, licking their chops. Control of curriculum, technology, content, distribution, etc. Wikimedia can see to it that content is free, open source software and hardware vendors can see to it that interoperability and transparency are the order of the day. If this can be accomplished - and it will - we won't see learners chained to ever-more-expensive and cumbersome systems like this one in the future. Note that this is happening in Florida, one of the "big three" curriculum states. California and Texas are also slated for rollouts like this from MSFT and other vendors. Other states will follow. Now is the time to show public educators that there's a better, cheaper, more flexible way to do things. Sanford ****** Read on... (from www.dailywireless.org) Students at Ocoee Middle School in Florida will be among the nation's first to experience round-the-clock fingertip access via a joint project involving Microsoft Corp.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston; and HP. http://www.stockworld.de/msg/570392.html The first-of-its-kind educational project, will gauge how well students learn using a Tablet PC and a Web-based curriculum with computers and full-time Internet access for everyone. Microsoft Class Server http://www.microsoft.com/education/?ID=MobileSchools enables students and teachers to log into their Tablet PC, notebook PC, or Pocket PC for anytime access to assignments and work management. Using the wireless Tablet PCs, students will have practically-anywhere access to their Holt Online Learning curriculum and a host of Microsoft tools, including Producer for PowerPoint(R), Movie Maker 2, Windows Media(R) Series 9 and Encarta(R) Reference Library 2004. Students will be able to take handwritten notes, make and share journal entries, and electronically complete exercises, homework assignments and tests on a single device. Ocoee is one of the first four showcase sites for the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) in the nation. A student ID card is used for a keyless entry system as well as library checkout and cafeteria purchases. Students logon to the wide area network and immediately access their desktop from anywhere in the school. Technology is integrated throughout the school into the teaching and learning process.

[Crossposted to <wikien-L>, since it discusses an edit of the main page.] Jimmy Wales wrote in part: Then it should say "free and open content". I'll change it right now! -- Toby

Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: You're supposed to use the GNU licences thus: "This is covered under the GNU Whatever License Version x.y or any later version; the current version is at this URL.", but you're supposed to use the CC licences thus: "This is covered under the CC Whatever License; the license is at this URL.". So if people have been doing that, then CC can change the text of the licence just fine; the only licence is the latest version. NTIAAL, but that's how it looks to me. -- Toby

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode Yes, it's in there, in this form: This is different in many ways from the way the GNU FDL spells it out, but in essence, it's the same thing. That's the real problem of incompatibility that I think can only be solved through an explicit recognition of each other's licenses or clauses allowing the use of other licenses that have 'substantially similar' provisions. --Jimbo