On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
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:
In order to be in compliance with the GFDL you need to be in compliance with the whole thing, not just one section.
Anthony
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?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
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:
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...
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
On 5/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@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?
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
On May 16, 2006, at 4:06 AM, Anthony DiPierro 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?
An article.
Where is the Title Page? Where is the section entitled History?
These answers, at least, don't seem obvious to me.
Who is the Publisher?
The Foundation.
Is each new version published as a derivative of the previous under the permission of the GFDL
Yes.
or is it a joint work of authorship? Where are the copyright notices?
The bottom of each page.
On 5/16/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 4:06 AM, Anthony DiPierro 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?
An article.
That's certainly a possibility, but as you're not the one who was claiming that Wikipedia follows the GFDL, I'll wait for an answer from someone who does.
Where is the Title Page? Where is the section entitled History?
These answers, at least, don't seem obvious to me.
None of them seem obvious to me.
Who is the Publisher?
The Foundation.
The Foundation claims to not be a publisher, but merely an ISP, though.
Is each new version published as a derivative of the previous under the permission of the GFDL
Yes.
I think that's a very difficult position to take. One problem, for instance, is that each version of the Document has to have a different title.
or is it a joint work of authorship? Where are the copyright notices?
The bottom of each page.
I don't see it.
FWIW, I'm not saying that Wikimedia is legally required to be in compliance with the GFDL. The original publisher doesn't have to follow the license, they just have to have permission from the authors to publish. Or if they're just a web host, an ISP, then they only need permission to host. Of course this would negate the inclusion of any content originally released under the GFDL by other parties not affiliated with Wikipedia.
It also makes things difficult for third party mirrors. Right now the mirrors are forced to guess the answers to the questions I posed above. Or they could just violate copyright law, which is what the majority are doing.
Anthony