File talk:GFDL (English).ogg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2008 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
- Here is an excrpt from the Vote for deletion:
Okay, this is really wierd. The GFDL (see Commons:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License) says
- Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
User:Chamaeleon read the GFDL as part of the Spoken Wikipedia project, but alas, the spoken version is a "verbatim copy" and can't be changed.
Admins: don't delete this file unless a copy has been put at w:Image:GFDL (English).ogg, where it can definitely be kept. dbenbenn | talk 17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- keep: the GFDL is itself not GFDL (strangely enough), and it is non-free by the definition used on the commons (derivatives are not allowed). But having the GFDL on site is a requirement if we want to publish under that license, for instance we host the full text at the german wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License. I belive a spoken version is important for blind people etc, and may even be a requirement with respect to the accessibility laws in place in the US. So I belive that the GFDL, in any form, is acceptable on the commons, as one of the rare exceptions we have to make, so things do not become absurd. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If we host the text, we can certainly host the sound.--Pharos 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's a special case. Of course the gfdl can't be gfdl (otherwise I could change it to read "all your gfdl are belong to me"). it needs to be clearly marked as such, and protected. Zeimusu 15:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the GFDL requires that when you publish a modification you use a different title. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason for the GFDL itself to not be GFDL. I suppose the Free Software Foundation simply doesn't want the text of the GFDL to be free. Possibly the FSF wants to discourage people from writing their own copyright licenses. dbenbenn | talk 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)