However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all
OK, in that case, what stops me from "independently publishing" it as an *original* Public Domain work?
Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress).
Um... no, but they (or rather anyone reproducing a modified version) would have to include a history section listing the authors (i.e. themselves).
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/10/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages
But presumably when I edit someone else's version of a page, I/Wikipedia am/is distributing a modified copy of the Document, so there needs to be
a
History section as part of it under section 4.I.
Along with a dozen other requirements which aren't followed.
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all. Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress). Now change 2 to 50 and apply it to a typical Wikipedia article.
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...
Indeed...
David
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l