Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do than waste time on the BJAODN? - White Cat

That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages

Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...

Deleting BJAODN is a complete waste of time, since it lead to this completely useless and unproductive chain of discussions. IMHO, Wikipedia culture is better stored in meta. - White Cat On 6/10/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote: BJAODN? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all

Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress).

On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: a Along with a dozen other requirements which aren't followed. However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all. Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress). Now change 2 to 50 and apply it to a typical Wikipedia article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain.

Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like?

On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: therefore If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain. works would Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like? I agree we should include a title page with the text "Big Cats, by Anthony DiPierro and Whoever". But I don't see the purpose of a history section. Let's say we used a wiki to write this book. Does that change anything? Let's say we allowed the public access to the wiki. Does *that* change anything? Let's say instead of 2 of us there were 50 of us. Does *that* change anything? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Public domain is not a license.

I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.

A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.

On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: work Public domain is not a license. called then he start include Bloggs, I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section. --- A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it. Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.

On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: If you are the joint author of a work, you can license it. If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it. and What you're missing is that the authors of a work don't have to follow the GFDL. If there is a joint authorship agreement, then that governs the authors rights. If not, then each author owns an undivided interest in the entire work, essentially like a [[concurrent estate]]. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 6/11/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: I do what? I have permission from the authors of Wikipedia articles to license those articles under the GFDL? Yes, I do. I don't have permission to release those articles into the public domain, though. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.

Eh? From section 4.I of the GFDL: "If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document"

That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section:

On 6/12/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote: Because it tells you how to create the section entitled History if a Document does not have one, and it is talking about the history of the Document's authorship. Also because it would be absurd to author history in a chapter about the history of London.

A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.

The Cunctator wrote: Except that the Document is presumably modified by removing the history section.