Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/12/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the GFDL. And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't hold the copyrights over Wikimedia content, it is merely a user that must follow the terms of the GFDL like any mirror or fork. Wikimedia could, however, provide financial or legal assistance to the authors whose copyright is infringed in a lawsuit.
That would be fairly hypocritical, though, since Wikimedia itself doesn't even follow the GFDL.
*hauls out text of the GFDL*
Right. Section 6: Collection of Documents:
In order to be in compliance with the GFDL you need to be in compliance with the whole thing, not just one section.
What other sections are we not compliant with? I thought that this was the big one...
The articles themselves are licensed under the GFDL, and Wikipedia is a collection of articles - so the individual copies are replaced by a single copy *included in the collection*. IANAL but it's good enough for me, /and most other contributors/. What's *not* good enough is mirroring us without even *attempting* GFDL compliance, at least to the same extent that Wikipedia itself complies with the GFDL.
And how would you suggest they do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance