[Foundation-l] WikiGadugi Wikipedia Rating???

[Jeffrey V. Merkey]

geni wrote:

>On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Under the GFDL you give consent to relicense your changes. This means
>>whomever is the last editor of an article is the "Author", not the
>>whole chain of editors to that point since subsequent editors are simply
>>relicening your content when they add their own edits. By editing and
>>saving the article, the final editor is the author in this sense.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Please re-read the GFDL:
>4.
>
>B List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
>responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
>Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
>Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five),
>unless they release you from this requirement.
>
>I do not release you from this requirement.
>  
>

Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS 
since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what.
In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish 
authors along with content.

>  
>
>>The GFDL and Wikipedia's posted policies state that Wikipedia must be
>>given attrbution to comply with the GFDL.
>>    
>>
>
>That isn't the case. see:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations
>
>  
>
>>Your website is then listed
>>in the "Mirrors and Forks" as a BAD WEBSITE if you do not.
>>    
>>
>
>There are a number of ways of following the GFDL. Which one you chose
>it up to you. IF you think you can't mention wikipedia to give credit
>then you must give credit localy.
>  
>

>  
>
>>Wikipedia
>>cannot give consent to use "Wikipedia" since it does not own the
>>trademark, the foundation does.
>>    
>>
>
>I would be rather impressed if the foundation managed to win a legal
>case against someone  useing thier name to say where the text was
>taken from.
>
>  
>
No progress I see here ...

Jeff