So, the authors directly relate to give completely true form of
contributed to switch to assume your minimally acceptable is because
of share-alike, but you are contribution?
skype: node.ue
2009/3/21 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:42 AM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/3/21 Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
There's no reason to assume that they are.
Actually there is see. Remember every wikipedian who has edited a page
has released a modified version of a GFDL document. I hope you are not
accusing them of violating copyright on a massive page
That's one way to look at it. A more sane way would be that wikipedians
have collaborated on a number of documents which they agree to release to
third parties under the GFDL.
The GFDL defines Title Page
as the text "near the most prominent
appearance of the work's title,
preceding the beginning of the body of the text". The interpretation
that an arbitrarily titled link somewhere on the document (it used to
be called "Older versions") to a difficult to navigate changelog
exists to satisfy the author credit provisions of the GFDL (section
4.B, since you asked) is hardly more defensible than the
interpretation that credit is given to the Wikipedia community ("From
Wikipedia"), or that no credit is given.
Given that neither of those would be legal under the GFDL I don't
think you are helping your case.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I was blasted for saying this. However, I don't see
how you can honestly claim otherwise. Wikipedia doesn't follow the GFDL,
and never has. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse third parties from
not following the GFDL.
Given that only the terms of the GFDL will allow wikipedia to switch
to CC-BY-SA declaring said terms to be Irrelevant
is at best foolish.
At least it's honest.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l