Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Gnu -> GNU)
(Rephrase this page -- it gets linked to an awful lot)
Line 1: Line 1:
Some open content Wiki sites use the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] for their work. For Wikitravel, this license doesn't meet our [[Wikitravel:goals and non-goals|goals]], so we've chosen a different one instead.
+
Some open content Wiki sites use the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] for their work. For Wikitravel, this license doesn't meet our [[Wikitravel:goals and non-goals|goals]], so we've chosen a different one instead. This page tries to explain why.
  
The GFDL is specifically oriented towards software manuals and other textbook-sized references. For Wikitravel, we really want to have each article redistributable on its own. Specific requirements of the GFDL -- such as requiring that all copies of the work be distributed with a copy of the GFDL and a changelog, as well as "transparent" (i.e. source) versions if you distribute over 100 copies -- make that harder.
+
The GFDL was developed to support making Free Content versions of software manuals, textbooks, and other large references. Its requirements for what you have to distribute with a document under the GFDL -- such a copy of the GFDL and a changelog, as well as "transparent" (i.e. source) versions if you distribute over 100 copies -- aren't really all that onerous for large volumes of text.
  
It's easy to imagine some small "publishers" who might want to have simple photocopied printouts of Wikitravel articles:
+
But for Wikitravel, we really want to have each article redistributable on its own. Wikitravel articles can be as small as 1-2 printed pages. For such small documents, it just doesn't make sense to require people to pass out another 10 pages of legalese text, as well as floppy disks or CDs full of [[Wikitravel:Wiki markup|Wiki markup]].
 +
 
 +
Consider these small "publishers" who would distribute stacks of photocopied printouts of Wikitravel articles:
  
 
*Local tourist offices
 
*Local tourist offices
Line 12: Line 14:
 
*Wedding or event planners
 
*Wedding or event planners
  
For an article of 1-2 printed pages, it just doesn't make sense to require people to pass out another 10 pages of legalese text, as well as floppy disks or CDs full of [[Wikitravel:Wiki markup|Wiki markup]].
+
Burdening these publishers with restrictions meant for software documentation or textbooks would mean that they'd either ignore our license -- a bad precedent to set -- or, more likely, just bnot use our work.
 +
 
 +
We make our content Free so we can collaborate on this wiki, but also because we want it to be seen and used. We can't serve travellers with useful information if they can't get to that information in the first place.
 +
 
 +
==A lightweight alternative==
  
 
The license we've chosen, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, is much easier and more lightweight. We think that using the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license (by-sa) meets our goal of having  [[Wikitravel:copyleft|copyleft]] protection on Wikitravel content, without putting an excessive burden on small publishers. All that needs to be included are copyright notices and the URL of the license; this can be done in a short paragraph at the end of the article.
 
The license we've chosen, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, is much easier and more lightweight. We think that using the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license (by-sa) meets our goal of having  [[Wikitravel:copyleft|copyleft]] protection on Wikitravel content, without putting an excessive burden on small publishers. All that needs to be included are copyright notices and the URL of the license; this can be done in a short paragraph at the end of the article.

Revision as of 17:20, 15 January 2004

Some open content Wiki sites use the GNU Free Documentation License for their work. For Wikitravel, this license doesn't meet our goals, so we've chosen a different one instead. This page tries to explain why.

The GFDL was developed to support making Free Content versions of software manuals, textbooks, and other large references. Its requirements for what you have to distribute with a document under the GFDL -- such a copy of the GFDL and a changelog, as well as "transparent" (i.e. source) versions if you distribute over 100 copies -- aren't really all that onerous for large volumes of text.

But for Wikitravel, we really want to have each article redistributable on its own. Wikitravel articles can be as small as 1-2 printed pages. For such small documents, it just doesn't make sense to require people to pass out another 10 pages of legalese text, as well as floppy disks or CDs full of Wiki markup.

Consider these small "publishers" who would distribute stacks of photocopied printouts of Wikitravel articles:

  • Local tourist offices
  • Hotels or guesthouses
  • Helpful travellers
  • Teachers
  • Exchange student programs
  • Wedding or event planners

Burdening these publishers with restrictions meant for software documentation or textbooks would mean that they'd either ignore our license -- a bad precedent to set -- or, more likely, just bnot use our work.

We make our content Free so we can collaborate on this wiki, but also because we want it to be seen and used. We can't serve travellers with useful information if they can't get to that information in the first place.

A lightweight alternative

The license we've chosen, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, is much easier and more lightweight. We think that using the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license (by-sa) meets our goal of having copyleft protection on Wikitravel content, without putting an excessive burden on small publishers. All that needs to be included are copyright notices and the URL of the license; this can be done in a short paragraph at the end of the article.

The big downside of not using the GFDL is that GFDL content -- like Wikipedia articles -- cannot be included in Wikitravel articles. This is a restriction of the GFDL -- you're not allowed to change the license for the content, unless you're the original copyright holder. This is kind of a pain for contributors, but we figured it was better to make it easy for users and distributors to comply with our license.

Creative Commons is planning to issue a new revision of their suite of licenses some time in the winter of 2003-2004. Compatibility with other Free licenses is "a top priority", and we can expect that some time after that version change, articles created on Wikitravel can be distributed under the GFDL. So, even though we can't include GFDL work into Wikitravel, other Free Content authors can include Wikitravel content into their work.

Other options

If not having your contributions under the GFDL is unacceptable to you for some reason, and you can't wait the few months until the new version of the by-sa comes out that would be compatible with the GFDL, there are a couple of different options.

  • You can contact the Free Software Foundation (FSF), authors of the GFDL, and Creative Commons, authors of the by-sa license, and let them know that the fact that their licenses don't mix is causing you difficulty.
  • You can dual license your work under both the by-sa and the GFDL. Note that this makes collaboration between Wikitravellers more difficult, and requires some attention by you to the stipulations of the GFDL.
  • You can choose not to contribute to Wikitravel. We're sorry our goals don't align with yours, but we hope you can make a contribution somewhere else! There is another Wiki-based Free Content travel guide Web site, CapitanCook, which uses the GFDL, which may be better for you.

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages