On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
I pointed out
that this would violate the GFDL I got a response from Slim Virgin that
"This is no time to worry about the GFDL."
This demonstrates the best example of SlimVirgin's little crusade
against Brandt, because it demonstrates that she is willing to risk
Wikipedia's legal integrity for the sake of winning it.
Any "violation of the GFDL", as you phrase it, creates a situation of
questionable legal status. If a true "violation" occurs, then
Wikipedia is infringing upon copyright, and that is a problem.
Then again, most Wikipedians don't seem to understand that the GFDL
doesn't require half as much attribution as they seem to think, so
this is probably another false cry...
Rob Church