Why not dual license everything? Both under GFDL and CC as of now on? A thought.
- White Cat
On 9/10/07, 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.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l