[Foundation-l] CC-BY-SA migration checklist

[Anthony]

On Dec 3, 2007 7:36 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 7:15 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > No. "History" is an invariant section, and the standard wikimedia
> > > copyright statement says that our work is released under the GFDL with
> > > no invariant sections.
> >
> > "History" is not an invariant section.
>
> My interpretation of this could certainly be mistaken. I base it on
> this passage:
>
> "A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
> the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
> publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
> subject ... The relationship could be a matter of historical
> connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
> commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
> them."
>
> With the "History" section being a named appendix that deals
> exclusively with the relationship of the publishers/authors to the
> document. The GFDL does not explicitly say one way or the other
> whether this is the case.
>
Not all Secondary Sections are Invariant Sections.

> > > Also, section 4(b) of the GFDL states that an
> > > author may waive their right to be listed as an author on the title
> > > page. We encourage people not to invoke this right. We also don't go
> > > out of our way to alert them that they can. Also, if you treat
> > > wikipedia as a single work (ie, a complete encyclopedia) then the
> > > title page for all of wikipedia would only contain the names of 5
> > > authors. I think the board could select an appropriate 5, if there was
> > > an issue.
> > >
> > All of this is correct, but tangential to what I said.
>
> Not tangential at all. You said that the GFDL "Requires" that we list
> at least 5 authors on the title page. My point here is that this is
> not necessarily the case.

Fair enough.

> authors can opt-out of this requirement, and
> to my knowledge every wikipedia contributor to date has done so (or at
> least not explicitly opted-in).
>
In that case, count this as my explicit opt-in.  I've certainly never
opted out, and I doubt very many others have either.