-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/6/05, Gerrit Holl gerrit@nl.linux.org wrote:
Habj wrote:
According to GFDL, one must always state what work under GFDL the
present
work is based on. Is this true also for translations between different wikipedias? I have heard both "yes" and "no" stated as an answer to
this.
If I take that literally, article revision N should always explicitly state that it's based on article revision (N-1), or does it?
Gerrit.
Well, the only sane way to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is to treat the revisions as contributions toward a joint work, not to treat each individual edit as creating a new version under the GFDL. All of this is just speculation, though, there isn't really an explicit statement as to exactly how to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia. For translations the previous version should be stated in the section entitled history. The most straightforward way to do that would be to add a section entitled history to the article itself. One could argue that this requirement is met by simply adding a note in the edit summary, but this is a somewhat tenuous argument. You could also argue that there is an implicit license, or that any co-author in a joint work has certain rights beyond the GFDL, but these would be completely untested waters.
I believe that the revision history itself is considered part of the work (since it contains the authorship infomation); the annotations provided in the edit summaries, which may included statements such as "translated from (interwiki)(article)(revision)" are a significant part of this. Where talk pages exist, these too rightly form part of the article, especially where the history of a transwiki is contained in them.
Further discussions on this matter should probably go to juriwiki-l...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \