[Foundation-l] WikiGadugi Wikipedia Rating???
Robert Scott Horning
robert_horning at netzero.net
Sun Jan 21 20:41:50 UTC 2007
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
>In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must
>make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the
>GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you
>must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article. We also
>recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one
>is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab
>(it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the
>authorship will have changed, too).
While I would agree that a "local copy" is a good idea, it is not in a
very strict sense necessary. All that is necessary is to have a copy
that is accessable through the network you are using, somehow. Having a
local copy means that it is accessable at the same time the rest of the
site is up/down.
As for the requirement to have the content link to the original source
article, that is not necessary either. It may be a good idea, but it is
not required by the GFDL, nor a legal requirement. All that is
necessary is that you credit five authors of the text, presumably the
five "leading contributors". It isn't clear exactly which five, or if
random vandals on the history page qualify, or what edits done that are
credited only to an IP address really mean, but only five are strictly
needed. The metric for determining the five "leading contributors" is
certainly a very grey area in terms of what the GFDL asks you for here.
Edit count is hardly the best metric for many reasons.
All of the other requirements are completely made up here and are not
needed by the GFDL. If this is something the Wikipedia community wants
to put into here, they ought to change the license that Wikipedia is
licensed under. Good luck on trying to do that. That would mean
restarting Wikipedia from scratch, essentially.
I'm not suggesting that these are bad recommendations in terms of being
nice to Wikipedia and helping to grow Wikimedia projects, but be very
clear that this is what you are saying and not that these are legal
requirements that are strictly necessary to copy the content, or even
republish it in the form of another website. While "good advise" in
terms of being nice, this is awful legal advise on the whole.
Robert Scott Horning
More information about the foundation-l