Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/12/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)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.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP