On 5/16/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)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
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?
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
The Foundation claims to not be a publisher, but merely an ISP, though.
Is each new
published as a derivative of the previous under the permission of the
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
or is it a
joint work of authorship? Where are the copyright
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.