2007/9/11, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 11/09/2007, Andre Engels
<andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As just to show how impractical - there are 14
requirements for
modified versions, of those 14:
* A is broken by Wikipedia (no different title is given)
* B is broken (author of the new version and authors of the previous
version are not given on what should reasonably be considered the
title page)
I would dissagree.
In what respect? What warped interpretation of "the text near the most
prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of
the body of the text" do you use so that the previous authors (or at
least 5 major ones) as well as the new author are mentioned there?
* C is broken
(wikipedia is mentioned on the 'title page', but not
being a formal entity can't be the publisher, that is, I guess, the
WMF)
No WMF is a service provider. Publisher is the author.
Still not mentioned.
* D is
trivially adhered to (there are no copyright notices on
Wikipedia pages, so they are indeed kept)
* E is broken (the copyright notice as required by the GFDL is not shown)
See that notice at the end of the article
That's a copyright notice? It doesn't say who holds the copyright, for
one thing. And if it is, then we don't "add" the copyright notice, but
replace it. Still not good.
* F is broken
only in a trivial way (the permission is shown, but not
after the copyright notices, since they aren't shown)
* G is trivially kept (there are no invariant
sections and cover
texts, so they are kept as far as they exist)
* H is possibly adhered to (the issue is whether having a link is
sufficient to consider the GFDL is 'included')
* I is broken (our history does not include the title or the publisher
of the modified version)
Publisher is the author. Title is the version title.
Author is given as author, not as publisher. Version title is not stated.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels