GNU FDL changes

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    >    [...] You can't reuse an article safely without attaching the
   >    >    entire GFDL. [...]
   >    > That applies to all copyright licenses, the GPL included.

   >    It doesn't apply to CC-by-sa.

   > Indeed it does.  It is the whole point of a license, you cannot know
   > the license terms if you cannot see the license.

   > |      * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to
   > |        others the license terms of this work. The best way to
   > |        do this is with a link to this web page.

   Er, no. A link to the licence web page is not including a copy of
   the whole licence. That's the point of CC-by-sa being considered a
   more sensible idea for Wikipedia than the present GFDL, which is
   technically "free" but is monstrously ill-suited to it.

And you can do exactly the same thing with a GFDL work.  For example,

| A copy of the license is can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gfdl.txt

instead of:

| A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
| Documentation License.''

   >    Attaching the entire GFDL 1.2 text is not meaningfully "free" for
   >    photos or single-page texts. And how do you reasonably implement it
   >    for a motion picture.

   > This would fall under fair use.  But I fail to see what a motion
   > picture has to do with this, if you use a copyrighted work, you have
   > to note that, and its license.

   No, you're answering something other than what I wrote. Wikimedia
   Commons includes images and motion pictures under the GFDL. The
   originals don't include the entire licence in the movie itself; how is
   this to be meaningfully reused? The answer in practice is "it isn't" -
   the licence fails in practice at reusability.

See above.