[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

[Anthony]

On 9/9/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 9/9/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > On 9/9/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 10/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Agreed, but not applicable, as what would be ethical would be to start
> > > > > > following the GFDL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, from a legal standpoint, that'd be irrelevant, since the
> > > > > > WMF has already had its rights terminated under the GFDL (see section
> > > > > > 9).
> > > > >
> > > > > WMF is not a publisher so it's rights are irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > True, I suppose, in which case every single person who has ever edited
> > > > a Wikipedia article has had their rights terminated under section 9.
> > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > documents are within the GFDL as long as you consider the entire
> > > > > document (the article text, the history and various other bits) rather
> > > > > than a single page.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you could point me to the title page which lists the five
> > > > principal authors of the Document, then.
> > >
> > > Strangely the GFDL does not state the the title page and history page
> > > cannot be the same thing.
> > >
> > Not in so many words, but it does say two things which pretty much
> > eliminate this possibility (and certainly eliminate the possibility
> > that Wikipedia is doing this):
> >
>
> Nope because the title page is not a "A section "Entitled XYZ" " it is
> somewhat different from other requirements in that respect.
>
Umm, thanks, you made my point.  The title page is not a "section
Entitled XYZ".  Therefore it is not a "section Entitled History".