Why not dual license everything? Both under GFDL and CC as of now on? A
thought.
- White Cat
On 9/10/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l