« Wikivoyage:Pourquoi Wikivoyage n'est pas GFDL » : différence entre les versions

+de trad (Import from wikitravel.org/fr)
(+de trad (Import from wikitravel.org/fr))
(+de trad (Import from wikitravel.org/fr))
Certains sites Wiki au contenu libre utilisent la [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] pour leurs publications. Pour Wikitravel, cette licence bene conviens pas a nos [[Project:buts et non buts|buts]], nous avons donc choisis une autre licence a la place. cette page essaye d'expliquer pourquoi.
La GFDL a été dévelopé to support making Free Content versions of software manuals, textbooks, and other large references. Its requirements for what you have to distribute with a document under the GFDL -- such a copy of the GFDL and a changelog, as well as "transparent" (i.e. source) versions if you distribute over 100 copies -- aren't really all that onerous for large volumes of text.
Mais pour Wikitravel, nous voulons vraiment que chaque article soit redistribuablere-distribuable "on its own"??. Certains articles de Wikitravel sont suffisamment petit pour étre imprimé sur un ou deux pages. For such small documents, it just doesn't make sense to require people to pass out another 10 pages of legalese text, as well as floppy disks or CDs full of [[Project:Wiki markup|Wiki markup]].
Il faut penser au petit "imprimeurs" qui peuvent distribuer des pilles de photocopie d'articles de Wikitravel:
*Wedding or event planners
Surcharger ces imprimeurs avec des restrictions prévue pour les documentations de logiciels ou pour des livres, signifiraitsignifierait, soit qu'ils ignoreront notre licence -- ce qui n'est pas notre interetintérêt -- ou, plus probable, ils n'utiliseront tout simplement pas notre travail.
We make our content Free so we can collaborate on this wiki, but also because we want it to be seen and used. We can't serve travellers with useful information if they can't get to that information in the first place.
==A lightweightUne alternative légère==
La lisenselicence que nous avons choisis, la Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, est beaucoup plus simple et more lightweight. We think that using the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license (by-sa) meets our goal of having [[Project:copyleft|copyleft]] protection on Wikitravel content, without putting an excessive burden on small publishers. All that needs to be included are copyright notices and the URL of the license; this can be done in a short paragraph at the end of the article.
The big downside of not using the GFDL is that GFDL content --comme les articles de Wikipédia -- '''ne peuvent pas''' êtres inclus dans des articles de Wikitravel. This is a restriction of the GFDL -- you're not allowed to change the license for the content, unless you're the original copyright holder. This is kind of a pain for contributors, but we figured it was better to make it easy for users and distributors to comply with our license.
Creative Commons isprévoie planningde tosortire issueun anouvelle new revision of their suite of licensesversion somede timeleurs indifférentes thelicences wintercourent of 2003-2004. Compatibility with other Free licenses is "ala toppriorité priorityn°1", and we can expect that some time after that version change, articles created on Wikitravel can be distributed under the GFDL. So, even though we can't include GFDL work into Wikitravel, other Free Content authors can include Wikitravel content into their work.
==Autres options==
Si pour vous ne pas mettre vos contributions sous GFDL est inacceptable, et que vous ne pouvez pas attendresattendre quelques mois jusqu'aà ce que la nouvelle version de la "by-sa"?? sorte, qui sera compatible avec la GFDL, il y a plusieurs possibilitéespossibilités.
*Vous pouvez contacter la [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] (FSF), authors of the GFDL, and [http://www.creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons], authors of the by-sa license, and let them know that the fact that their licenses don't mix is causing you difficulty.