User talk:Trödel

Welcome

Thx Trödel|talk 16:02, 11 July 2006 (MDT)

GFDL

Hello. I'm still learning about writing for Wikipedia or any other form of Wiki. I'm not really sure what the GFDL copyright is. How would becoming GFDL compliant benefit our site and what would it entail? Amaranth|talk 13:20, 6 July 2006 (MDT)

That is a fairly complex answer but the short version is that Wikipedia, for instance, has a lot of articles that are well written and could be immediately moved over to MormonWiki and edited to be more friendly to the Church. For example see these articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_temples_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_%28Mormonism%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_%28Mormonism%29 ( I personally wrote alot of this article see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bishop_%28Mormonism%29&action=history so I can copy and paste my own work here)

Also many of the biographies are done well. See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apostles_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Each of the links has a biography on them already.

If the license here complied with the requirements of the GFDL then we could wholesale copy over that information - attribute it back with a link in the history to the source on wikipedia and then make as many changes as we want to the text.

The downside is that anyone could do the same with the text once it is here - if you have GFDL license - then other could copy the text and use it however they want - even on anti-mormon sites. But if the writing is favorable to the LDS Church it should be fine - as they won't want to use it - and could more easily copy the less favorable version on wikipedia.

What do you think Trödel|talk 16:02, 11 July 2006 (MDT)

I think it is good. What should we do to use it? Also what do you know about creative commons license ?

Giuseppe

Quickanswer: A creative commons license might be able to be used. My understanding is that it must be either Cc-by-sa, Cc-by, or Cc-sa. Though I think one would want the both the attribution and share alike properties. The other creative commons licenses will not work because they do not allow commercial use. There is some who would like to see the backers of GFDL and CC get together to have a common license or at least make sure they are as compatible as possible.

More complete answer:

The GFDL[1] provides (in part): "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." Thus to comply with GFDL you have to have a notice in the copyright that the work includes or is derived from, in part, wikipedia, is licensed under the GFDL - and you cn add no other conditions. The creative commons Cc-by-sa[2] license says "... Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; to create and reproduce Derivative Works;... ...You may distribute...the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of...this Licensew with every copy ... You distribute... You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder... ...You may distribute...a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License... ...If you distribute...the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author ... or designate[d] party or parties..." As you can see they are very similar in that both require the "distributor/copier" to include a notice it is subject to the license, attribute the source and subject the completed work to a similar license. Generally Creative Commons licenses were intended for pictures, music, etc. (creative works) and the ... after distribute includes all these other types of rights protected under copyright law. GFDL has a history in software and documentation. I'll do some checking to make sure that a "Cc-by-sa" license would be acceptable, if that is a prefered license.

Trödel|talk 15:53, 12 July 2006 (MDT)

Looks like I was wrong:

"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it."

The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. Trödel|talk 15:53, 12 July 2006 (MDT)