Anthony writes: This is a telling admission. I respect anyone's desire to have rights over the copyrighted material he or she generates. That's a function of traditional copyright law and it informs the traditional regime of "all rights reserved". But if you don't give primacy to the mission of spreading free knowledge to the world -- the function of free licenses! -- including your edits of other people's contributions, perhaps you are involved in the wrong project? So is current Wikipedia practice consistent with the GFDL or not? Obviously, the History page reachable from a Wikipedia article could be interpreted as not being a "section" or a "named subunit." Historically, the community has generally interpreted this attribution requirement of the GFDL as allowing for a link to a History page. In this respect, there is no essential difference between GFDL and CC-BY- SA 3.x. If there is no essential difference, then your concern about getting credit is a wash, regardless of whether the license on Wikipedia is updated. This doesn't mean your concern is any less valid or invalid -- it just means that there's nothing inherent in the question of updating the license that should trigger it. --Mike