On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have considered it to be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between questionably satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it. Not at all. Whether you get to the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on "history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged page history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too if someone wants the list of editors.