Axel-
I'm not sure we should assume this before having
tried. One could argue
that this should actually be pretty cheap:
* GFDL materials are useless for most commercial enterprises
Which includes the people who sell them ;-). The problem is that by
licensing under the GFDL, the company loses the ability to license to
people like us in the future, i.e. those who want to produce freely
copiable materials. So they will want to get as much money from the first
GFDL licensee as they can, because they won't get another one.
Furthermore, copyright holders are notiously suspicious about anything
new -- they usually have ready made packages and will not alter their
licensing policies just because we tell them to, simply because
understanding the implications of the FDL requires legal consultation
which costs money.
I obviously agree that it's worth trying. But I am not very optimistic.
> I don't see the slippery slope, sorry.
I don't either. It's either freely
distributable/modifiable or it
isn't.
In its entirety, yes. But just because we allow fair use, Wikipedia will
not automatically and gradually turn into a proprietary encyclopedia
(slippery slope argument).
If I understood correctly, you argue that quotes are
embedded in the
text while images are kept in separate files, thus GFDL is not
inherited by the photo but is inherited by the quotes. This is
incorrect. Derivative work are required to be under GFDL;
So is the text
Bla
in combination with the text
[[Image:Bla.jpg]]
The
technical detail that text and images are typically kept in separate
files is irrelevant; illustrating an article by adding a picture is a
classical case of a derivative work.
The wiki-author doesn't add a picture, he adds a reference to a picture.
The web browser will automatically retrieve that image if so instructed
(visit the page with lynx and there is no image). The result is an
aggregated, not a combined work under the FDL. The author cannot even
change the image in any way by editing the article. Now, if article and
image were always compiled together (as they would be on paper), that
would be a different matter. But they aren't.
Moving quotes out of the main text
and then "including" them somehow is a technical gimmick that doesn't
change anything: adding a quote also creates a derivative work.
You would no longer add a quote, but a reference to one, and the same
logic as above would apply.
So yes, fair use quotes are technically violations of
GFDL, but
completely harmless.
Many copyright holders see things differently. Author Dan van der Vat, for
example, was asked to pay 25 British pounds for quoting two sentences from
Churchill's History of the Second World War in his book "The Atlantic
Campaign". Sure: The legality is questionable. But don't kid yourself
into believing that nobody would ever consider quotes infringing.
Treating fair use of quotes and images entirely differently is
hypocritical and wrong.
Regards,
Erik