[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

[Anthony]

On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Anthony
> > <mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To=44B43991.5060907%40telus.net>
> > wrote
> >
> >On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >> >It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
> >> >Internet, though.  The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
> >> >of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
> >> >argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all.  The
> >> >more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
> >> >interpretation.
> >> >
> >> If it has been made public it has been published.  The real question
> >> here is _who_ did the publishing.
> >>
> >{{citationneeded}}
> >
> >
> "For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil
> make it
> to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John
> Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century.  The basic meaning has been around
> for  a long time.
>
> Ec
>
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
work does not of itself constitute publication."

Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
rental, lease, or lending.  But then again, by that definition
*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
court would agree with that.

Anthony