If such
whimsical lawsuits are indeed a possibility, then the danger of
action should be weighed against the danger of inaction: right now, any
past contributor could sue for violating GFDL 4.A, failing to change an
article's title after modification. I just don't see how suits like
that are viable.
--Axel
What do you mean by "Article title"? We do provide an article title
which changes with every edit. Click on "Permanent link". It's also
availabe with the author list. The GFDL itself recommends adding an
unique number to the end of a title section to make it unique (section 5).
Also, you would also need to prove that you didn't gave permission to
keep the title when abiding to Wikipedia rules: "You may use the same
title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version
gives permission." If we consider that the publisher are not you but the
Wikipedia project, the case is even clearer.
You've got the burden of proof backwards there. Once the person suing
for copyright infringement establishes a prima facie case for
copyright infringement (that they wrote the text and that you copied
it or prepared a derivative work from it), the burden shifts to the
defendant to prove that they have a valid license.