On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 9/9/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)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):