User:Alexis Jazz/Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point

This is not how you draw attention.

This page may contain some profanity. If you are PC Principal you probably shouldn't be reading this page. Try going here instead. Everyone else should probably take this essay with a grain of salt. Or a truckload.

🖕

No, not it..

Mildly better, I'm almost listening..

NOW you've got my attention!

Someone may have told you to read Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point, but somehow you're now here. Which is good, because this essay is much more interesting!

The other one basically says not to disrupt Commons and instead simply discuss the issue, like civilized people. As the Dutch would say:

"We dronken een glas, deden een plas en alles bleef zoals het was."

(We had a pint, took a piss and everything still was the way it is.)

Or simply put: shit never changes. Talking and discussing is a fine method of achieving change.. When it actually achieves something.

GFDL, oh, GFDL, what hath thou bestoweth upon us

The GNU Free Documentation License which is short for GFDL is shit. It was the license Wikipedia used before moving on to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. It was created to complement the GNU General Public License for software (which isn't shit) with a license for documentation.

Back in 1999, Britney Spears was still a drug-free virgin and nobody knew GFDL was going to suck balls. Actually, I'm not so sure about Britney, but I digress. The main problem with the GFDL is that it requires re-users to provide the full license text:

"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."

If you try to print the text of the GNU Free Documentation License a Greenpeace member will punch you in the face for killing 7 pages worth of innocent trees.

At the time, this wasn't a huge issue for the documentation that would be supplied with GPL licensed software. So you include a text file with 7 pages of yawn, whatev. But that's when the GFDL also started to be used for other things, like Wikipedia and pictures. And being forced to print 7 pages of yawn just so you can legally use a picture... no.

With Creative Commons, a link to the license is sufficient. And depending on the medium, you don't even have to provide that. But the GFDL never died and even new pictures can still be licensed as GFDL on Commons. It's not like nobody ever tried to drive a stake through its heart. If you try to print that, a Greenpeace member will smother you in your sleep for killing 89 pages worth of innocent trees.

Disruption

Despite this, some photographers continued to use GFDL for their photos. Some may have actually intended to effectively restrict re-use to make it non-commercial or Wikipedia-only. Some may have continued to use GFDL as a relic from the old days before Creative Commons, thinking it wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. And a few may have even continued to use it just to make a point: it's broken, fix it or deal with it.

It took years but eventually, the community got kinda pissed off with this. And that's when the community got rid of GFDL for photographs. Because it started to sufficiently piss them off.

If you want attention for something and any hope of change, try setting something on fire. But don't complain if you get burned.