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
(Notes for people who can't live without the GFDL)
m (+WikitravelDoc|policies)
 
(38 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
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.
+
'''    ⇒ [[:shared:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL]]'''
  
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.
 
  
It's easy to imagine some small "publishers" who might want to have simple photocopied printouts of Wikitravel articles:
+
{{WikitravelDoc|policies}}
  
*Local tourist offices
 
*Hotels or guesthouses
 
*Helpful travellers
 
*Teachers
 
*Exchange student programs
 
*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]].
+
[[de:Wikitravel:Warum Wikitravel nicht unter GFDL lizensiert wird]]
 
+
[[fr:Wikitravel:Pourquoi Wikitravel n'est pas GFDL]]
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.
+
[[ja:Wikitravel:ウィキトラベルで GFDL を採用しない理由]]
 
+
[[nl:Wikitravel:Waarom geen GFDL licentie]]
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.
+
[[pl:Wikitravel:Dlaczego Wikitravel nie jest GFDL]]
 
+
[[sv:Wikitravel:Varför inte GFDL används på Wikitravel]]
==Other options==
+
[[wts:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL]]
 
+
If not having your contributions under the GFDL is unacceptable to you for some reason, there are a couple of different options.
+
 
+
*You can contact the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] (FSF), authors of the GFDL, and [http://www.creativecommons.org/ 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 [[Wikitravel:dual licensing|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, [http://www.capitancook.com/ CapitanCook], which uses the GFDL, which may be better for you.
+

Latest revision as of 02:51, 18 August 2010

    ⇒ shared:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites