On 23 May 2006 09:22:17 -0700, TheAndroid wrote:
I have a question regarding the GFDL. It assigns ownership and credit
to the author (cool) but does not require the source of the
documentation be disclosed (uncool). What this means is anyone can reap
the site and sell CD's of the contents on EBay under the pretense of a
personally constructed collection. Is there a means to extend the GFDL
to cover the fact that the documentation gleaned came from this
metalworking wiki? I'm concerned that someone will swoop in and profit
from your work. Unless of course no one else cares.

I personally do not care if anyone profits from anything that I write
publicly, however, GFDL requires some sort of acknowledgment.

J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the
network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was
based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a
network location for a work that was published at least four years
before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the
version it refers to gives permission.

I raise this issue as we had this exact same scenario earlier with the
Dropbox as there was no clear understanding that the information
contained within the site was not for resale, period. I don't want us
to get into another brouhaha.

Did the person who wanted to profit, actually profit at all?

Making money from selling CDs with copies of webpages, is not very
easy.

If the GFDL can (and maybe it does) require credit be given to the
container of the collection as well, I would feel better.

I believe that it does, maybe I am mistaken. The nice thing about GFDL
is that it allows mirroring and copying, which helps preserve these
materials.

i