[WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Tue Jan 24 01:57:44 UTC 2006

On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Are you sure this is the correct reading of the GFDL?  I see it as
> > > meaning that you cannot take a GFDL'd document and relicense it.  NOT
> > > that the original author cannot release their own original work under
> > > multiple licenses.
> >
> > I don't see any other way to read it.  It doesn't say you can't
> > relicense the document.  It says you can't "copy, modify, sublicense,
> > or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this
> > License" and that doing so (actually, according to the language,
> > merely "attempt"ing to do so) will "automatically terminate your
> > rights under this License."
>
> Technically speaking, though, "the Document" is only the GFDL-licensed
> version.  If you work on an original, non-GFDL version and then
> relicense a version as GFDL which you release, then the wording cannot
> affect the parent document.
>
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there.  The wording doesn't
affect the document, it revokes the GFDL for someone who copies (etc.)
the document in some way outside the permissions of the GFDL.

But you do have a point that a separate version of the Document might
not be considered "the Document".  I guess that would rectify the
situation for the case of a Document dual-licensed.  Instead of one
Document, you call it two.

> Also, if you are the original author, you are not relying on any
> rights granted by the GFDL.  The GFDL grants people who are not the
> copyright holder the right to distribute.  If you are yourself the
> copyright holder, you do not require the GFDL in order to distribute
> the work - you are using your natural rights as a copyright holder,
> not any additional rights the GFDL grants you.
>
Yes, what Tony said.  I wasn't talking about the rights of the
original author, but rather the rights of the person given permission
under the GFDL.

> I suspect at the very least that my reading is the reading the FSF
> intended, and that the ambiguity is thanks to rather poor legal
> wording of the license, rather than original intention.
>
> -Matt

Well, the original intention seems clear - to revoke permission under
the GFDL to someone (other than the original author, of course) who
breaks the GFDL.  It's actually a clause originally from the GPL,
where it makes a lot more sense, because the GPL tries to tie the
permissions on distribution to the permissions on modification rather
than keep them seperable.

But in terms of the GFDL, I think it's clear that if, for instance,
you took a GFDLed document, changed an invariant section, and then
redistributed it, the intention is that you'd be breaking the GFDL and
therefore your permission under the GFDL would be revoked.  What I was
suggesting is that this clause might come into effect even if you had
permission, for instance under a separate license grant, to change
that invariant section and redistribute the document.

I think you're right that this wasn't the reason that clause was
added.  But I also don't think it's clear what the author intended to
happen in that situation.  I do think it is clear, though, that the
author wasn't thinking merely of the fact "that you cannot take a
GFDL'd document and relicense it."

Anyway, this tangent was fun and slightly educational, but it's worn
out its welcome on my part :).  Unless you have a particular question
about what I was trying to say I'm going to just leave my crazy ideas
about the GFDL as is.

Anthony