On 9/9/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Agreed, but not applicable, as what would be ethical would be to start following the GFDL.
Of course, from a legal standpoint, that'd be irrelevant, since the WMF has already had its rights terminated under the GFDL (see section 9).
WMF is not a publisher so it's rights are irrelevant.
True, I suppose, in which case every single person who has ever edited a Wikipedia article has had their rights terminated under section 9.
Wikipedia documents are within the GFDL as long as you consider the entire document (the article text, the history and various other bits) rather than a single page.
Perhaps you could point me to the title page which lists the five principal authors of the Document, then.
Strangely the GFDL does not state the the title page and history page cannot be the same thing.
Not in so many words, but it does say two things which pretty much eliminate this possibility (and certainly eliminate the possibility that Wikipedia is doing this):
Nope because the title page is not a "A section "Entitled XYZ" " it is somewhat different from other requirements in that respect.
Umm, thanks, you made my point. The title page is not a "section Entitled XYZ". Therefore it is not a "section Entitled History".