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:
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.
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.
Again, IANAL.