On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)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.
Ec