I don't know how relevant this is, but under the Communications Decency Act, Wikimedia is technically a provider and not a publisher.
On 7/4/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/4/06, Anthony wikilegal@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. As the Wikibooks case demonstrates, this can lead to serious problems when contributors try to do the right thing, but end up doing the opposite of what we want.
I suggest that such an interpretation be undertaken after a community consultation on Meta, so that as many people as possible can add their questions about the GFDL (which does not necessarily mean that all of them will be answered, of course).
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l