-----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.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \