2009/3/21 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
2009/3/20 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
Now that argument is flawed on a number of
grounds but I think I'll
take the easy option. Where is the link of the following pages:
Try the edit pages.
Doesn't help you. Even those that do mention their equiv of
wikipedia:copyrights don't mention it in a context where it could be a
be considered a TOS and not all do. Then of course we have commons
who's Commons:Licensing doesn't help you at all.
Seriously Erik it bad enough that you are not paying attention but
suggesting I wouldn't check your claim is somewhat insulting.
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
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.
You're in woolly territory to
begin with, which again re-affirms what I've been saying: we can
identify, through past practices, community-created terms of re-use,
the way that Wikipedia itself implements the GFDL, etc., a reasonable
baseline. Providing credit by linking to the page is a reasonable
baseline. And again, nowhere does a significantly greater expectation
for credit reasonably arise.
The book version of the German wikipedia? The import export functions?
It's also evident because a GFDL document can be
created without a page history while still giving author credit.
However it cannot be modified without creating a history and that
history is required to include "new authors" among other things.
Irrelevant.
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.
I am saying that we have established,
through historical practice, policy and debate, that crediting
re-users via link or URL is a minimally acceptable baseline.
False. Look up history merging sometime.
Re-parse "minimally acceptable baseline".
Seeing how we react to cut and paste moves I would suggest your
minimally acceptable baseline isn't.
--
geni