On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/4/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It would also be nice to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
This is the first time this has come to my attention, and I would also appreciate a response on this issue. The GFDL explicitly requires the "publisher" to be credited in the history of modified versions (section 4.I), though not in the title (indeed, it explicitly states that the new publisher should be credited instead). It does not provide a definition for the term "publisher." It is not our current practice to require publisher credit to the WMF, though it is also somewhat unclear when section 2, "Verbatim Copying" and when section 4, "Modifications" would apply; "Verbatim Copying" only places minimal requirements on third parties.
Does the WMF consider itself the publisher?
I think it would be quite important to have a legally authoritative interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikimedia Foundation project content. So far we've been basically "playing it by ear" when it comes to GFDL compliance.
Whether WMF considers itself a publisher is a matter of policy. A "legally authoritative interpretation" is a different matter, and no lawyer's interpretation in an opinion letter will be authoritative. Legal authority can only come from real court decisions.
Surely a statement from the chief executive of the WMF (who also happens to be a lawyer), stating that they do not consider themselves to be a publisher, would make it unlikely that a court would find someone in violation of the GFDL due to the fact that they failed to name the WMF as the publisher.
Alternatively, a statement from the chief executive of the WMF, stating that they do consider themselves to be a publisher, would make it unlikely that a court would find someone in violation of trademark law due to the fact that they *did* name the WMF as the publisher.
Finally, even ignoring the legal issues, it'd be really nice to know what the WMF *wants* people to do.
Whether or not Wikimedia is a publisher for the purposes of the CDA is one thing - for that question you're right that a court ruling is the only way to know. But whether or not Wikimedia is a publisher *for the purpose of the GFDL* is another matter altogether, since presumably Wikimedia would be the only one with standing to sue over neglecting to name it as the publisher of a GFDL work.
Anthony