On 11/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/7/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > It doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation to me. In fact, I think > such an interpretation would completely subvert the intention of the GFDL, > which is to make a work actually reusable. Again, I think the only sane way > to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is to treat the entire article (at the least) > as a single work by multiple authors. That's the way the GFDL was intended > to be applied. If two people work on a textbook, the GFDL doesn't require > them to have a history section listing every single typo that was fixed by > one or the other. No, they are joint authors of a single text. You only get > into Modified Versions if someone comes along and forks the text. > > Now look, you can argue that this isn't the case, but if you are doing so > you're saying that Wikipedia is out of compliance with the law, because > Wikipedia is clearly out of compliance with the GFDL (and not just with > regard to the History section). >
Hey, IANAL, and AFAIK RMS approves, so AFAICT we're ok wrt. the GFDL.
Have you looked at the GFDL? There are a whole bunch of conditions on distribution which simply aren't being followed by Wikipedia. This is just considering the website - the dumps are even more out of compliance. This is not to say that Wikimedia is breaking the law, it is quite easy to make the argument that they have the right to distribute the information outside the rules of the GFDL. But to say that Wikimedia is in compliance with the GFDL I think ignores the plain facts of the situation. And what RMS thinks is completely irrelevant.