From: Toby Bartels
But how to build that into the legal technicalities?
The problem is that we really don't have any options there.
We chose the GNU FDL a long time ago and are now at its mercy.
Whether it's good or bad, it's viral, and we're stuck with it.
(Which reminds me, has RMS shown any further interest in a Lesser FDL
and in allowing FDL works to be relicensed under a Lesser FDL?
This was to facilitate integration with other free copyleft licences,
like Creative Commons BY-SA, if nobody remembers.)
The reality is that we do have options. We are free to reasonably
interpret ambiguities in the GNU FDL to suit our purposes as long as we
preserve the intent. But that doesn't even necessarily apply to this
One main thing to remember is that the authorship constraints on
documents only apply to derivative works, not original works. Wikipedia
is not a derivative work of itself; we can choose what our rules for
attribution are without constraint by the GFDL.
For a very long time I've advocated making it explicit that the only
authorship credit we should require downstream is "Wikipedia
contributors" to avoid any bothersome bullying or complaints such as
what Maverick is engaging in right now.
But I'll try to believe that his actions are merited by his
good-intentioned but unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on behalf of
142 and not based on a goal of censoring anything written by 142.
In other words, I sincerely hope Mav isn't trying to use his
interpretations of the law as a stick to bludgeon Anthere's attempt to
disseminate what she believes is valid knowledge, because I find that
tactic, used in the past by the Church of Scientology, Disney, and Bill
O'Reilly to stifle critics, repulsive.