<br>I believe the drafters of the GFDL (primarily law professor Eben Moglen) knew that "publish" has a precise legal meaning that is distinct from "making public." I also freely concede they did not anticipate the issue of "hidden" texts -- which probably means the drafters should be understood as having been neutral on the question.<br>
<br>That said, I would point out that my interpretation is not only legally defensible but also involves the least amount of thinking and juggling and confusion with regard to implementation.<br><br>I would add that, in my view, text is "live" even if hidden, so long as it is possible for some administrator to recover it be inspecting the database.<br>
<br>If we want to keep this simple, we won't overthink this based on edge cases.<br><br><br>--Mike<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Robert Rohde <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rarohde@gmail.com">rarohde@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Mike Godwin <<a href="mailto:mgodwin@wikimedia.org">mgodwin@wikimedia.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I'm sorry for being unclear. My answer in this hypothetical would be this:<br>
><br>
> Whether the article is "live" or not is, in my view, orthogonal to the<br>
> question of whether it is part of the MMC that is being relicensed. A<br>
> "dead" article, or an article that was scarcely viewed before it was hidden,<br>
> is part of the MMC by virtue of the fact that it can be restored at some<br>
> later date.<br>
><br>
> The confusion lies in the conflation of the notions of (1) publication and<br>
> (2) made publicly available. Although in common language, the two notions<br>
> are identical or close ot it, in legal terms they are analytically distinct.<br>
> Hiding an article for lack of notability (for example) doesn't make it<br>
> nonpublished. It has still been published, and you can't unring that bell by<br>
> hiding it. (Also, making the article available at all and having it exist in<br>
> the MMC database, though hidden, is still publication for legal purposes, in<br>
> my view.)<br>
<br>
</div>I realize and accept that there is a distinction between being<br>
"published" (which may be a historical fact) and being "publicly<br>
available".<br>
<br>
However, my concern turns on the fact that GFDL 1.3 refers to a right<br>
for content to be "republished" under CC-BY-SA. Perhaps the legal<br>
understanding is different from my understanding, but in order for<br>
content to be "republished" it seems like there needs to be a new (or<br>
at least ongoing) act of publication.<br>
<br>
The framers of the GFDL could have created a right to "relicense"<br>
content under CC-BY-SA, in which case I would agree that where that<br>
content currently resides doesn't matter. But since they explicitly<br>
framed it in terms of being "republished" I am wondering whether or<br>
not it the license migration can be said to apply to content that is<br>
at no point live during the window of time for republishing under<br>
CC-BY-SA.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Robert<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>