Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings?

[MJ Ray]

"David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >  work.
>
> We're talking about Wikipedia GFDL text, so that's not going to
> happen. [...]

Jimmy Wales has approved relicensing from one set of FDL terms to
another in the past, so it could happen... or maybe it would be too
embarrassing or controversial to play fast-and-loose again now.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002335.html

> We already have spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia.
> These would presumably be a copyright violation if not right there on
> Wikipedia [...]

Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in
certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F).
There's probably other special cases too.

Little is clear-cut where copyright is concerned.  :-(
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237