On 5/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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...
It's hard to even apply the GFDL to Wikipedia. You say it's a
collection of Documents, so what would be an example of a Document, as
it applies to Wikipedia? Where is the Title Page? Where is the
section entitled History? Who is the Publisher? Is each new version
published as a derivative of the previous under the permission of the
GFDL, or is it a joint work of authorship? Where are the copyright
notices?
Answer these questions and I can tell you how Wikipedia is not compliant.
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
That's a list of sites which people believe range in compliance from
low to high. It doesn't in any way answer my question.
(By the way, I see that
Answers.com, the site which Wikimedia is
business partners with, isn't even listed under High compliance.
That's a good example of how ridiculous GFDL compliance with Wikipedia
is.)
Anthony