Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings?
dgerard at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 22:36:34 UTC 2008
On 21/04/2008, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> My advice would be to convince the copyright holder to re-license the
> work under something more sane, like the GPL v2. That, at least,
> doesn't require the license terms to be included in the redistributed
We're talking about Wikipedia GFDL text, so that's not going to
happen. CC-by-sa compatibility is anticipated in the near future, and
GFDL 1.3 in the nearer future, so we could use "or later version" and
do a CC-by-sa shuffle. But not right away.
We already have spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia.
These would presumably be a copyright violation if not right there on
Wikipedia (which of course has the GFDL and complete article history
linked on every page) - so can't be used elsewhere. Argh.
Does running a Wikipedia article through Festival violate the
copyright if you record it? ARGH.
More information about the Discussion