On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony
<mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To=44B43991.5060907%40telus.net>
wrote
On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at
telus.net
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
It's not just the fact that the distribution
is taking place on the
Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The
more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
interpretation.
If it has been made public it has been published. The real question
here is _who_ did the publishing.
{{citationneeded}}
"For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil
make it
to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John
Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around
for a long time.
Ec
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
court would agree with that.
Anthony