YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Editing Wikitravel:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
'''    ⇒ [[:shared:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL]]'''
Some open content Wiki sites use the [ 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.
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, a changelog, or that "transparent" (i.e. source) versions be available 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:
*Local tourist offices
*Hotels or guesthouses
*Helpful travellers
*Exchange student programs
*Wedding or event planners
[[de:Wikitravel:Warum Wikitravel nicht unter GFDL lizensiert wird]]
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]].
[[fr:Wikitravel:Pourquoi Wikitravel n'est pas GFDL]]
[[ja:Wikitravel:ウィキトラベルで GFDL を採用しない理由]]
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 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.
[[nl:Wikitravel:Waarom geen GFDL licentie]]
[[pl:Wikitravel:Dlaczego Wikitravel nie jest GFDL]]
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 disseminate Wikitravel articles.
[[sv:Wikitravel:Varför inte GFDL används på Wikitravel]]
[[wts:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL]]

You may have to refresh your browser window in order to view the most recent changes to an article.

All contributions to Wikitravel must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. By clicking "Save" below, you acknowledge that you agree to the site license as well as the following:

  • If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!
  • All contributions must be your own original work or work that is explicitly licensed under a CC-BY-SA compatible license.
  • Text and/or images published on another web site or in a book are likely copyrighted and should not be submitted here!
  • Wikitravel has strong guidelines on links to external web sites. Links to booking engines, hotel and restaurant aggregator sites, or other third-party sites will be deleted.
  • Contributions that appear to be marketing or advertising will be deleted.

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: