On 10/28/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the
license will
create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese,
but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
Yes it is, but for the benefit of the audience the argument against
mixing non-binding text with binding text goes something like this:
Consider two people:
Person A: No ability to understand the legalese at all.
Person B: Able to understand the legalese without difficulty.
Both A and B are going to reprint a highly enhanced subset of a free
encyclopedia where all the articles have been edited for accuracy.
We'll consider two licenses:
X: "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
whole.
Y: "Collective Work" means a work in which the Work in its entirety in
unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
whole.
Lets assume the free encyclopedia is licensed under Y.
Person A reads Y, decides he can't understand it.. and either gives up
or consults an attorney.
Person B reads Y, understands it, and realizes this section is not
excusing him from conformance.
Now lets assume license X.
Person A reads X. sees the word encyclopedia and can't understand the
rest. He is either mislead into thinking that since he's printing an
encyclopedia he's a collective work and doesn't have to distribute the
whole under the terms of the license... Or he worries that he didn't
quite understand it, and consults his attorney.
Person B reads X, understands the legalese, and gets it right.
So the argument is that the explanatory language doesn't help the
clueless because they are insufficient to covey the complete meaning
of the license, so you must still always understand the rest and that
the existence of null effect language can create confusion.
Of course, the world isn't so black and white and people exist on a
continuous spectrum between A and B. There are pros and cons to each
style, and either kind of language could be selected by a rational and
informed license author.
In any case, I hope I've cleared up any confusion brought by The
Cunctator's inaccurate claim about the GFDL as there isn't a material
difference between the CC-By-SA and the GFDL in the permissions
granted with respect to aggregations.