[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit (was: Wikibooks for sale)

[James Hare]

I don't know how relevant this is, but under the Communications Decency Act,
Wikimedia is technically a provider and not a publisher.

On 7/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > It would also be nice
> > to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
> > claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
>
> This is the first time this has come to my attention, and I would also
> appreciate a response on this issue. The GFDL explicitly requires the
> "publisher" to be credited in the history of modified versions
> (section 4.I), though not in the title (indeed, it explicitly states
> that the new publisher should be credited instead). It does not
> provide a definition for the term "publisher." It is not our current
> practice to require publisher credit to the WMF, though it is also
> somewhat unclear when section 2, "Verbatim Copying" and when section
> 4, "Modifications" would apply; "Verbatim Copying" only places minimal
> requirements on third parties.
>
> Does the WMF consider itself the publisher?
>
> I think it would be quite important to have a legally authoritative
> interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikimedia Foundation
> project content. So far we've been basically "playing it by ear" when
> it comes to GFDL compliance. As the Wikibooks case demonstrates, this
> can lead to serious problems when contributors try to do the right
> thing, but end up doing the opposite of what we want.
>
> I suggest that such an interpretation be undertaken after a community
> consultation on Meta, so that as many people as possible can add their
> questions about the GFDL (which does not necessarily mean that all of
> them will be answered, of course).
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>