Having recently become interested in the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), I followed the link to the organization that runs it, the Free Software Foundation. I figured maybe they would be interested in hearing about how Wikipedia systematically violates the GFDL.

However, a quick scan of the FSF site tells me that they are into some shady stuff themselves. The FSF is involved in campaigns, for example, to prevent the adoption of Windows Vista.

Whatever one might think of Microsoft, I think this is yet another reason to think twice before contributing to Wikipedia or the FSF. Most users who write something for Wikipedia don't want anything to do with someone else's complex political agenda.

Additionally, the "Reporting Violations of GNU Licenses" page illustrates just how ill-fitting this license is to the Wikipedia project.

I'd be interested to hear what others have to think. I don't know much about licenses, but I suspect Wikipedia is going about this very very wrongly.

FSF is dominated by Richard Stallman. Stallman is like everything Eric Cartman imagines of the hippies of his worst nightmares. He is characterized by Steven Levy as "the last hacker" and he did do some great work relating to Emacs, a unix/linux text editor that eventually became bloated with features such as a programming IDE and games such as Conway's Life and even a old style text based RPG. I think he became interested in licensing after a falling out between with the LISP Machine/Symbolics people from MIT/AI back in 70's. Mostly Stallman, for all his talk of freedom, is dogmatic and intolerant. This accounts for much of weirdness of the GFDL as well as the geek humor of the GNU self recursive name, which stands for "GNU is Not Unix." I don't believe he bathes very often.

That's true, but I personally wouldn't characterize a campaign against the widespread adoption of Windows Vista as "shady" - more like "common sense"!

Putting aside the performance and configuration issues, I actually have nothing against an OS that supports DRM restrictions per se, but there's almost no question that Microsoft is selling it deceptively, using terms like "trusted computing" and "genuine advantage" to refer to things that are clearly not in the end-user's best interests.

Like anything successful, the GNU/FOSS/Open Source/Free Software movement has spawned many factions, sub-factions, schisms, apostates, and false converts.

FSF/GNU is only one piece, albeit the oldest. The GPL is widely used largely because it is the oldest (and therefore most widespread) open-source license. It is, as you note, somewhat encumbered by Stallman's philosophy that software (and knowledge in general) should not be owned or controlled by anyone.

That having been said, the topic of the weirdness of the GPL (and by extension to GFDL) goes well beyond the scope of Wikipedia Review. There is another thread that began and ended recently on the subject of Wikipedia's avowed plan to move to a new GFDL that is compatible with CC-By-SA, one of the almost infinite number of Creative Commons licenses.

Regarding Microsoft, there are many reasons to oppose them: their monopoly position and penchant for abuse of it, the general crappiness of the Windows OS, their ambitions toward hegemony in other markets, and the overall creepiness of their management. You don't have to be a Stallman-esque nutcase to think that Microsoft is best opposed at almost every turn!

I like Microsoft. Flight Simulator on the Tandy 1000 was good times.

But anyway, just knowing that Wikipedia and the FSF are such a bunch of bunny-huggers makes me want to help them out even less.

I kind of hope Gates dumps a few million into Encarta and wipes them off the map.

The FSF definitely already knows all about Wikipedia and their (ab)use of the GFDL. In fact, Wikipedia is currently in negotiations with the FSF to basically have the FSF give them permission to abandon the GFDL in favor of CC-BY-SA (the actual legal process is way more complicated than this, but that's basically what it boils down to).

Stallman, from the FSF, got into a nice public fight with Wales all the way back at the beginning of the Wikipedia. Jimbo created Nupedia, and released it under some license the FSF considered "non-free" (I don't even remember what it was), and Stallman created Gnupedia as a "free" encyclopedia to compete with it. Wales got really pissed that Stallman tried to steal his name and his thunder, and sent some nasty mailing list posts about it. Stallman tried to claim the similar name was accidental. In any case, Stallman convinced Wales (though according to Larry Sanger, Sanger actually made the decision) to use the GFDL for Nupedia's license, and Stallman essentially abandoned the Gnupedia project.

I don't "get" how FSF can "giving permission" that would impact the rights of contributors who licensed their work under the GFDL. The FSF just crafted the document. You are not "giving" FSF any rights to your work when you use the GFDL. There is this weird "Stallmanism" in the GFDL that says if you license your work subject to GFDL the license holder can switch to a different version of GFDL. This is especially weird if GFDL substantially alters the terms after others have relied on upon a previous version. WP (and Godwin and strangest of all Lessig) seems to be taking the erroneous position that they, not the contributors, can choose the "version" that applies. This isn't "freedom" it is whim and petulance. The best I imagine is Lessig is trying to dig WP out of the hole caused by the GFDL.

Stallman is a petty tyrant and Wales/Sanger were idiots (yet once again) to use his license.

Putting aside the point about the fundamental weirdness of the GFDL, and especially the "Future Revisions" clause, I would like to again point out that the GFDL has never been litigated. Indeed, the GPL has never been fully litigated in the U.S., although it was upheld in one case in Germany. In general, FSF actions in defense of these copyrights have been settled prior to any judgment on them by the courts.

In that case the question becomes what happens in the event of the complete failure of the license? Two options immediately spring to mind: 1) The contributor retains all rights of copyright, or; 2) everything submitted pursuant to the license becomes public domain. (1) has the virtue of creating the situation that would have occurred in the absence of any license at all, and is therefore the the legally most justifiable result. (2) has the advantage of causing a result which is more in keeping with the likely intent of the contributor and does less to disrupt the expectations of persons who subsequently rely on what they thought was a valid license.

Maybe a better approach is require some form of binding arbitration in the terms of the copyright that would permit resolution based on the judgment of some entity sympathetic to free licenses. The decision of these arbitrators could then be submitted for enforcement as judgments pursuant to arbitration statutes, at least in the US.

It would be #1, but the likelihood that this gets litigated around Wikipedia is very small -- it's not clear where the tort would be, given the general value is so low.

I don't understand why the press isn't all over this.

Headline:
WIKIPEDIA RENEGES ON FREE CONTENT LICENSE

I'm sure some more research needs to be done but to me, as a layperson, it seems pretty clear that Wikipedia is not honoring its contract with contributors.

(i) most of the press don't have a clue what GFDL is and (ii) a lot of people think wikipedia is only meant for educational (i.e. non commercial) purposes.

It might be worse than that. Hundreds of thousands of contributors might be in no position to rely on the licenses each issued to all subsequent contributors. Meanwhile WMF is just a service provider. It might be a knot so tangled that it is no longer worth the effort.

I think this is exactly what Wikipedia is counting on. Start with a complex, unenforceable contract. Then get everything so confused that commitments can be forgotten. Classic lawyer b.s.

Except the WP community would publicize it all over, and Slashdot and the Register alone would make for a very uncomfortable sitting position for the WMF board and Jimbo if this happened.

Except for one thing...who reads Slashdot, of The Register? You, I am guessing. Me, that's for sure. Nerds and geeks of all sorts from all over. That, however, (no offence to any of us here,) means exactly....nothing.

Slashdot and El Reg don't ahve enough pull over the kinds of people that can Get Things Done at a regulatory level to matter. The ENTIRE INTERNET can explode over something, and it's just a tempest in a teacup, as far as Wikipedia is truely concerned. There are always new people joining the internet, and new faces in classrooms to be educated. When one group of people become disillusioned with Wikipedia, they can simply indoctrinate another.

Unless something is don at a regulatory level, then all the internet chatter is just static. If we ever want something to be done about any of this, it has to come to the attention of Fox, or CNN or whatever it is Americans watch, and that with regularity, and the Dire Overtones that they are used to for the rest of thier news.

While I love El Reg, and have a warm place in my heart for Slashdot...the best that either seem likely to accomplish is a small dent in the numbers of Wikipedia contributors. Don't, however, hold your breath on that MATTERING in any way...something tells me Jimbo has a few backup plans for enabling recruitment.

The press isn't all over it because it hasn't happened yet. Once the deal is finalized you can be sure it'll be all over the press - the WMF will probably even release a press release about it.

In any case, before you go off to the press to tell them about this story, make sure you know all the details. GFDL and CC-BY-SA are very similar licenses. There will supposedly be a long "community debate" before any final decision is made. The FSF still has to sign off on it. There might be an offer to let people "opt-out" of the switch. And there are lots of legal issues as to why this change might be legally possible. My summary above is extremely oversimplified.