Actually, this is not true. A license is an agreement between 2 people
and a declaration of will, but you have to interpret it within the
context. Since it is not possible to respect the text of the GFDL, you
have not other choice but to understand that it is a declaration of will
and to intrepret it within context.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On 11/19/05, Andre Engels
<andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2005/11/19, Michael Crouch
<creidieki(a)gmail.com>om>:
I'm trying to improve the English
Wikipedia's documentation on article
moves, and I had a GFDL question. I hope this is the right place;
feel free to point me elsewhere.
Articles on En are often split in a cut-and-paste way, with material
from one article removed and put into another article. None of the
documentation (that I can find) mentions anything about maintaining
the necessary authorship information.
I've been told several times (on [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] and
[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]) to simply mention in the edit
summary "This material moved from [[Foo]]". Is this adequate for the
GFDL requirements? I know we might not have a perfect solution to
this, but I didn't want to add anything to the documentation without
making sure it was correct.
Simply speaking: No, it is not enough according to the GNU/FDL, but
Wikipedia is interpreting the GNU/FDL so freely anyway that adding this to
it does not differ much either.
Wikipedia has no legal right to "interpet the GFDL", when people save
text they give permission to use the text under a certain license, and
if you don't follow that license you're guilty of copyright
infringement.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l